01/07/2019 (MONDAY)

On Monday, I Joined under Adv. S.S.Mishra and assosiates. He guides us about the work we have to
perform in internship for coming one month. He briefly told us about our main tasks and also told
about the work environment of the court.

• Introduction
1. Getting to know the work which is carried by the interns and how to assist the
seniors in the office.
2. Read the cases and recorded the ratio of the cases so as to make database ready
for the future use.
3. Understanding the environment of the courts and the office.

 Main tasks
1. Main task was to assist seniors in the office and doing the documentation of the
cases.
2. The second task was of legal research, drafting.
3. The third task was to get knowledge about how works are done in tribunal and
courts system.

Sir told all the interns to reach everyday at Chember 32 , Supreme Court of India at 10 am sharply.
So that we can acompany sir in court room and also see the procedings in the court.

And, after attending the proceeding in the court we went to the office at B block, lajpat nagar.

After the brief introduction with everyone, sir had assinged a research work relating to section 34 of
the arbitration and concilation act 1996 on which i have to find cases in which the court has set
aside the award given by arbitrators.

They advised me to use MANUPATRA and SUPREME COURT CASES for researching the cases
and to mark the para's in the judgment and then submit it in a formet.

Also , later that day sir sends us to the High Court fo filling of vakalatnama (Misslanious
documents) of case naming Basant lal v. Raj kumar in which we are representing the side of Basant
Lal (Petitioner).

Its an accident case in which Hon'ble Karkardoma Court has decided that the respondend has to pay
Rs 3 lakhs to respondend And now respondend is filling case in High Court of Delhi sayingthe
damages are more so the compensation should be more and resonable.
 02/07/2019(TUESDAY)

Toaday , i directly went to the office (as instructed) and stated the research work assinged to me.
Also sir said to find more cases related to section 34(2)(b)(ii) [when award was granted against the
fundamental policy of India] of the arbitration and concilation act 1996.

the formet in which research has to be submitted has to include the name of the case, name of the
coourt , date of judgement , relevent paragraphs , and also a short summery which will explain the
relation of case to ours.

34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—(1) Recourse to a Court

against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such
award in accordance with sub-section (2) and subsection (3).
(2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if—
(a) the party making the application furnishes proof that—
• (i) a party was under some incapacity, or
• (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have
subjected it or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being in force;
or
• (iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of
an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;
or
• (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the
terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the
scope of the submission to arbitration: Provided that, if the decisions on matters
submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of
the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may
be set aside; or
• (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in
accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement was in conflict
with a provision of this Part from which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such
agreement, was not in accordance with this Part; or

(b) the Court finds that—

(i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under
the law for the time being in force, or
(ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India.
Explanation 1—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in
conflict with the public policy of India, only if,—
(i) the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in
violation of section 75 or section 81; or
(ii) it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or
(iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice.
Explanation 2—For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a
contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on
the merits of the dispute.]

[(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than international

commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that
the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous
application of the law or by re-appreciation of evidence.]
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed
from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral
award, or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that
request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the
application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application
within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.
(4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Court may, where it is
appropriate and it is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of
time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume
the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral
tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award.
(5) An application under this section shall be filed by a party only after issuing a
prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an
affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement.
(6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously, and in any
event, within a period of one year from the date on which the notice referred to in
sub-section (5) is served upon the other party.]
S.No. Name of case Court and date Relevent Ratio
para..

The arbitral award was

passed as a result of Ex
K.S. Forge Metal Pvt. Ltd. Delhi High Parts. But in the execution
1. V. Court 25 petition the court held that
Sachin Gupta and ors. 04.09.2012 the service of notice to
petitioner company was not
properly and no company
stamp or signatures were
present on the receipts of the
notice, thus award was set
aside by the Hon'ble high
court of delhi.

( Single bench decision).

At the stage
of challenge of arbitral
award, only the arbitral
tribunal’s record is to be
considered to determine the
Emkay Global Financial Supreme court grounds of challenge.
2. Service Limited v. Giridhar of India 20, 22 If matters beyond such
Sondhi 20.08.2018 record are at issue, parties
should ‘furnish proof’ of the
grounds of challenge only
by affidavits. Cross-
examination
of those testifying cannot be
allowed unless ‘absolutely
necessary’.

Disapproving view adopted

State of Bihar v. bihar rajya
3. bhumi vikas bank samiti
by many High courts in the
matter of interpretation of
Supreme court Section 34(5) the Arbitration
of India 7,8,20,2 and Conciliation Act, the
30.07.2018 7,29 Supreme Court has held that
the requirement (under
Section 34(5)) of prior
notice to the other party
before filing an application
to set aside an arbitral award
is a directory.

Arbitral Clause cannot be

4. Sandeep kumar and ors. Supreme court 6 invoked against those who
 V.Ritesh and ors.
Rajasthan small industries
5. corporation limited v. M/s
ganesh containers movers
6. Essar Oil Limited Vs. United
India Insurance Company
Limited
of India are not parties to
agreements.
The Managing Director of
the Appellant-Rajasthan
Small Industries
Corporation Limited shall
be the sole arbitrator and the
Managing Director is
Supreme court directed to take up the
of India 8,22,39 matter and continue the
23.01.2019 proceedings and afford
sufficient opportunity to
both the parties to adduce
further evidence and to
make oral submissions and
pass the final award within a
period of four months. It is
made clear that the arbitrator
may not be influenced by
any of the views expressed
by the High Court.
Gujrat High The award was set aside
Court 6,7 under section 34(2)(b)(ii).
20.11.2014 As the award granted is
against the fundamental
policy of India.

7 Ssangyong Engineering & Supreme court 47,49 The award is set aside under
Construction Co. Ltd. vs. of India section 34(2)(a)(iv)
National Highways Authority 08.05.2019
of India (NHAI)

03/07/2019 (WEDNESSDAY)

I was assigned to go through the case Kashi vishwanath Temple (petitioner) V. State of Uttar
Pradesh (respondent).

The case was filed before the constitutional validity of the kasha vishwanath temple act and
challenge by the priest that they are one who taken care of temple more than 100 years that time
government have no objection.
So the validity of act was challenged. In this case the priest of kasha vishwanath temple files the
case against the government authority. According to the priest of kashavishwanath temple (Linga
community) they had appointed by lord Shiva as their believe, taking care of this temple from
several century they are performing their task without any problem, they repair and reconstruct the
temple whenever is needed, but now the government took all the control of kasha vishwanath
temple for them and made an act of kasha vishwanath temple.
The priest of the kasha vishwanath temple files a case against the government. They challenge
constitutional validity of the act that is made by the government. According to them they are taking
care of the temple form more 100years without any greedy intention then they don’t have any
problem but why are they now involve in the matter of temple.

Issue arise in this PIL are-

 Constitutional validity of this act

 Ground of this act

04/07/2019 (THURSDAY)

We went to the office Lajpat Nagar and then sir allotted some of the files to check the default
list, and also to cure them the name of the file. List of files that I cure that day are –

 Shri Jatinder bali (Petitioner) V. Union of India (Respondent)

 Bata krushnapatra (Petitioner) V. State of Orissa (Respondent)
 GyadharJena (Petitioner) V. State of Orissa (Respondent)
 State of Orissa (Petitioner) V. Sri Tankadhar Singh (Respondent)
 Naryan Diwakar (Petitioner) V. CBI ( Respondent)

5/07/2019(FRIDAY)

We went to tiz hazari court to hear the proceeding of a case Shri Devender Kumar V MCD.
Judge- Poonam Chaudhary (MCD Court)
Court Room- 29
Petition under article 226 writ (Mandamus writ) illegal construction is carried out by the
respondent, damaged being caused to the property of the petitioner. The house has 3 floor ground
was purchased by the ...............>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?????

08/07/2019 (MONDAY)

Researched on the topic relating to the liquidation of delay under insolvency and bankrupcy act
2016.

The time limit for completion of the insolvency resolution process is laid down in Section 12 of
Code. A period of one hundred eighty days from the date of admission of the application is given by
Section 12(1) of Code. This is extendable by a maximum period of ninety days only if the
Committee of Creditors, by a vote to extend the said period, and only if the Adjudicating Authority
is satisfied that such process cannot be completed within one hundred eighty days.
The authority may then, by order, extend the duration of such process by a maximum period of
ninety days. Section 12(3) of Code which states that any extension of the period under Section 12 of
Code could not be granted more than once.

This had to be read with the third proviso to Section 30(4) of Code, which states that the maximum
period of thirty days mentioned in the second proviso is allowable as the only exception to the
extension of the said period not being granted more than once.

While Reg. 12(2) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations,
2016 specifically provides that the creditors may submit their claims (even after expiry of last date
fixed in the public announcement) to the resolution professional till the approval of resolution plan
by the CoC, apparently there is no such explicit provision in case of liquidation (voluntary or
compulsory), in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, IBBI (Voluntary Liquidation Process)
Regulations, 2017 or IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2017. This is where the liquidator’s
dilemma lies.

Thus, receipt of any such claim after last date of submission, the liquidator may reject the claim and
advise the creditor to seek directions against the liquidator, from the Adjudicating Authority to
admit such a claim. It is pertinent to note that there is a general remedy available to a creditor under
Section 42 of the Code, to appeal before the Adjudicating Authority, against the decision of a
liquidator rejecting his claim on any grounds which may also include rejection for late submission.

Held in Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Anr. MANU/SC/1063/2017 : (2018) 1 SCC
407 at paragraph 12. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, which is reproduced in the said
paragraph, makes it clear that the existing framework for insolvency and bankruptcy was not only
inadequate and ineffective, but resulted in undue delays in resolution. One of the primary objects of
the Code, therefore, is to resolve such matters in a time bound manner.

This would not only support the development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship, but
would also improve ease of doing business and facilitate more investment, leading to higher
economic growth and development.

09/07/2019 (TUESDAY)

Sir has assinged a case file of Manoj kumar vs state of Uttar Pradesh in which we have to read
the case file thouroly and then brief it to the sir and the then to write a report on progress of the
case.

Fact of the case – Manoj kumar vs state of Uttar Pradesh

The present petition directed against the judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby even though partly allowed the Special Appeal of the
petitioners and declared that the candidates who don’t have Mathematics or Science in their
Graduation are not eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teacher in the subject of Mathematics or
Science at government run schools and had further declared that the candidate who have not
41111qualified their teacher training course before the qualifying TET exam are also not eligible for
such appointment, however, the Hon’ble High Court did not quash such illegal appointment and
left- it to the petitioner to agitate the issue before the concerned authorities.

Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court has also failed to appreciate that the fact that there are 3219 post
of Assistant Teachers of Science/Maths under the government order/ advertisement dated
11.07.2013 are laying vacant. Hon’ble High Court also did not direct the authorities to draw a fresh
list of eligible candidates to fill the aforesaid 3219 vacant post. Further, the Hon’ble High Court has
not appreciated that TET scores are valid only for 5 years therefore, TET Score of most of the
eligible and deserving candidates who have cleared their TET examination after duly qualifying
their teacher training course will expire by the time the authorities take remedial actions, thus
protection of their TET Score must have been ordered by the Hon’ble High Court.

Hence, the petitioner have approached this Hon’ble Court with grievance that the appointment of
illegible candidates who have been appointed in contravention of the directions of the Hon’ble High
Court be quashed and they may be removed by the concerned authorities and further concerned
authorities be directed to draw a fresh merit list of eligible candidates as per the criteria laid down
by the Hon’ble High Court.

10/07/2019 (WEDNESDAY)

Researched on cases where cases are filled against goverment bodies under insolvency and
bankrupcy code 2016.

Yes, anyone can proceed against the government bodies under section 7 and 9 of the insolvency and
bankruptcy code, 2016.

Section 7 Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process by financial creditors.

(1) A financial creditor either by itself or jointly with [other financial creditors, or any other person
on behalf of the financial creditor, as may be notified by the Central Government,] may file an
application for initiating corporate insolvency resolution process against a corporate debtor before
the Adjudicating Authority when a default has occurred.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a default includes a default in respect of a

financial debt owed not only to the applicant financial creditor but to any other financial creditor of
the corporate debtor.

(2) The financial creditor shall make an application under sub-section (1) in such form and
manner and accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed.

(3) The financial creditor shall, along with the application furnish—
(a) record of the default recorded with the information utility or such other record or evidence of
default as may be specified;

(b) the name of the resolution professional proposed to act as an interim resolution professional;
and

(c) any other information as may be specified by the Board.

(4) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application
under sub-section (2), ascertain the existence of a default from the records of an information utility
or on the basis of other evidence furnished by the financial creditor under sub-section (3).

(5) Where the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied —

(a) a default has occurred and the application under sub-section (2) is complete, and there is no
disciplinary proceedings pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order,
admit such application; or

(b) default has not occurred or the application under sub-section (2) is incomplete or any
disciplinary proceeding is pending against the proposed resolution professional, it may, by order,
reject such application:

Provided that the Adjudicating Authority shall, before rejecting the application under clause  (b) of
sub-section (5), give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven
days of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority.

(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of
the application under sub-section (5).

(7) The Adjudicating Authority shall communicate—

(a) the order under clause (a) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor and the corporate debtor;

(b) the order under clause  (b) of sub-section (5) to the financial creditor, within seven days of
admission or rejection of such application, as the case may be.

Section 9 Applicationfor initiation of corporate insolvency resolutional process by oprational

creditors.

(1) After the expiry of the period of ten days from the date of delivery of the notice or invoice
demanding payment under sub-section  (1) of section 8, if the operational creditor does not
receive payment from the corporate debtor or notice of the dispute under sub-section (2) of
section 8, the operational creditor may file an application before the Adjudicating Authority
for initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process.
 (2) The application under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and
accompanied with such fee as may be prescribed.
(3) The operational creditor shall, along with the application furnish--
• a) a copy of the invoice demanding payment or demand notice delivered by the operational
creditor to the corporate debtor;
• (b) an affidavit to the effect that there is no notice given by the corporate debtor relating to
a dispute of the unpaid operational debt;
• (c) a copy of the certificate from the financial institutions maintaining accounts of the
operational creditor confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational
debt 1  [by the corporate debtor; if available;
• (d) a copy of any record with information utility confirming that there is no payment of an
unpaid operational debt by the corporate debtor, if available; and
• (e) any other proof confirming that there is no payment of an unpaid operational debt by the
corporate debtor or such other information, as may be prescribed.

(4) An operational creditor initiating a corporate insolvency resolution process under this
section, may propose a resolution professional to act as an interim resolution professional.

(5) The Adjudicating Authority shall, within fourteen days of the receipt of the application
under sub-section (2), by an order
(i) admit the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the
corporate debtor if,--
• (a) the application made under sub-section (2)  is complete;
• (b) there is no 3 [payment] of the unpaid operational debt;
• (c) the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor has been delivered by the
operational creditor;
• (d) no notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is no record
of dispute in the information utility; and
• (e) there is no disciplinary proceeding pending against any resolution professional proposed
under sub-section (4), if any;
(ii) reject the application and communicate such decision to the operational creditor and the
corporate debtor, if--
• (a) the application made under sub-section (2)  is incomplete;
• (b) there has been 3[payment] of the unpaid operational debt;
• (c) the creditor has not delivered the invoice or notice for payment to the corporate debtor;
• (d) notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of
dispute in the information utility; or
• (e) any disciplinary proceeding is pending against any proposed resolution professional

Provided that Adjudicating Authority, shall before rejecting an application under sub-clause (a) of
clause (ii) give a notice to the applicant to rectify the defect in his application within seven days of
the date of receipt of such notice from the Adjudicating Authority.

(6) The corporate insolvency resolution process shall commence from the date of admission of the
application under sub-section  (5)of this section.
The Kolkata bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted insolvency
proceedings against West Bengal Mineral Development & Trading Corporation (WBMDTC),
agencie of government of West Bengal. Referred to the bankruptcy court by Hiranmaye Energy,
formarly known as India Power Corporation (Haldia), over unpaid dues.

The application filed by the operational creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 is hereby admitted for initiating the corporate resolution process in respect of West
Bengal Mineral Development & Trading Corporation on 09/09/2018.

M/S Bank of Maharashtra (financial creditor) v. West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply
Corporation (WBECSC) under section 7 and 9 of the insolvency and bankruptcy code 2016.
Application was filled by the petitioner for initiation for corporate insolvency process.

11/07/2019 (THURSDAY)

Assigned a case file of Basanta paikaray v state of odisha to read the case file thoroughly.

The case file is given to us to read with section and then to brief it to the sir with our own opionin as
the junior adovocate is also drafting the bail application for the same case so i was instructed to help
and learn.

Fact of the case -

In the present case the petitioner is languishing in jail for last more than five years. The prosecution
has foisted upon a false case against the petitioner as well as four other family members. Out of the
five accused persons only petitioner has been languishing in jail and rest of the accused persons
have been granted regular bail by the courts below. The trial of the case has protracted and has been
still pending and out of 22 prosecution witnesses only 11 have been examined and 11 are yet to be
examined. The petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa lastly by way of bail
application no.2797 of 2016, after crucial witnesses of the prosecution in his evidence has not
supported the case of the prosecution. The Hon’ble High Court has declined to take into
consideration the fact that the PW8 has not supported the case of the prosecution and rejected the
bail application of the petitioner vide the impugned
order observing that “at this juncture, it cannot be pre-decided on the basis of evidence that the
death of the deceased was a suicidal death.” Law in this field has been crystallized by this Hon’ble
Court vide it’s judgment in “Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh” reported in (2002) 3 SCC
598 wherein this Hon’ble Court laid down that:-

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the
severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in
support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there
being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of
the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness
that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail.
Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court ought to have appreciated that the case of the prosecution has
been substantially damaged to the extent that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioner
therefore, the benefit of the same should have gone in favour of the petitioner that too in view of the
fact that the petitioner has suffered prolonged incarceration of more than five years as under trial
prisoner and conclusion of trial is unlikely in near future.

The factual background of the case necessary for the adjudication of the present petition is that on
01.02.2010 the petitioner was married with the deceased namely Sabita Rani Jena.
Thereafter, because of incompatibility issues differences arose between the petitioner and his wife.
On 06.04.2014 the dead body of the deceased wife was found by the neighbors of the petitioners
hanging from the ceiling fan the house when the door of the house was broke open. The fact that
room was bolted from inside and the entry into the room was only possible by breaking open the
door by the neighbors has been substantiated by the testimony of PW8. The brother of the deceased
on 07.04.2014 has lodged a FIR against the petitioner as well as four other family members for
torturing and causing dowry death of the deceased, which are punishable under section
498A/304B/302/306/34 IPC read with 4 D.P. Act.

The petitioner was arrested on 07.04.2014 and since then he has been languishing in jail while the
trial is progressing at snail’s pace. All the other co-accused persons have been granted bail by the
courts while the petitioner remained in custody. It is important to Since charge sheet could not be
filed by within 90 days the Ld. SDJM granting statutory benefit under section 167(2) Cr.P.C.
released the petitioner on bail vide its order dated 05.08.2014 passed at 2.00PM, after 45 minutes
the I.O. of the case files the charge sheet against the all the accused persons which was taken on
record by the concerned magistrate.
Thereafter, at 6.00pm the counsel for the petitioner furnished bail bonds in the chamber of the
concerned magistrate in view of the earlier order granting bail to the petitioner passed at 2.00pm,
the concerned magistrate refused to accept the bail bond. In this manner despite being granted bail
the petitioner has remained in custody. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the Court of
Sessions as well as the Hon’ble High Court seeking bail on multiple occasions however, the same
has been denied.
During the course of the trial the PW8 in his testimony has deposed that when he rushed to the
house he found that the door of the house had been broken and the dead body of the wife was
hanging from the ceiling fan. This witness has further deposed that “One Tapan Jena, a carpenter,
who was residing near the spot house had broken the door of the spot house by crow bar.” This
witness has further deposed in his testimony that “when the door was broke open be found the
deceased was hanging and her child was inside the room. No other person was found inside the
room.”
The petitioner moved the Hon’ble High Court seeking bail lastly on 11.05.2016 vide BLAPL
No.2797 of 2016 which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court vide impugned order.

12/07/2019 (FRIDAY)

Made list of incidents occured during the case of Naryan Diwakar (Petitioner) V. CBI (Respondent).

The facts of the case are-

He was caught for fraud that he done in the flat registrar committee where he given the flat to his
own family member and client and charge extra amount for this and also misrepresentation was
done by him that he is the owner of these flat
The petitioner, who was a member of Indian Administrative Services (1969 Batch), and retired from
the said service on 30.6.2004 on attaining the age of superannuation, has filed this petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuing a writ/order
or direction to quash 30 FIRs, and any other FIR registered by the respondent/CBI in respect of the
revival of the Co-operative Group Housing Societies (CGHS) during the tenure of the petitioner as
Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi ('RCS') from March, 2001 to 30th June, 2004 or for deletion
of his name from the said FIRs.
We direct the Director of CBI to conduct a thorough investigation in all the matters of 135
Cooperative Societies. It has been stated that in case of Page 892 four societies the cases have been
registered and the apprehension expressed by this Court in the earlier orders of a nexus between the
builders taking over the Cooperative Movement in Delhi has been found to be correct. It is
unfortunate that the same has been done, prima facie, as it seems in connivance with the office of
the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the office of the DDA. Land in Delhi is allotted at a
predetermined rate and not on the basis of the market value of the land.
Cooperative Societies were formed in order to have flats at affordable prices by the middle income
group and lower income group. It is the element of profit making in view of difference of market
value of land and the value on which land is allotted to the Societies, has resulted in the nexus of
builders and officials to reap gain by unholy alliance. If apartments are sold on the basis of market
price the very purpose of land given on concessional rate to the Cooperative Societies stands
defeated.

13/07/2019 (SATURDAY)

Researched on the topic party-appointed experts under arbitration and related case laws.
S.No. Name
1 Argentina v Uruguay
(Pulp Mills case)
2 Vita health laboratories pte
ltd v pang seng meng
3 Wong Meng Cheong v Ling
Ai Wah
4. Malay kumar ganguly v
doctor sukumar mukherjee
5. State of H.P. v. Jai lal and
others
6. Rai Sandeep Vs State
7 State of Maharashtra v/s
Damu s/o Gopinath Shinde
and others
Court and date Ratio
[2010] ICJ Rep The Court clarified that party-
14, 72, appointed experts may be submitted
to questioning by the other party as
para 167 well as by the Court.
[2004] 4 SLR The court said that the party
(R) 162 appointed is not reliable dues to first,
the expert are being paid by the party
Para –(81) second, they may be retained on a
regular basis by a particular client ,
thirdly the expert may hope to gain
favour with a claint genrally, perhaps
because he hopes that non-legal
professional engagements may be
forthcoming or continue.
(2012) 1 SLR In this the court held the if the expert
549 is been paid and brought by the party
then there is possibility that the expert
Page – 200 witness provides biased information.
Also, the court rejected the wording
of 2 witnesses saying those are
biased.
2009 (9) SCC The expert witness proceed by the by
221 the party cannot be the expert as they
did not have any expertise in the field
PARA 108-109, and therefore not allowed to perform
156 to 156, 194 as expert.
Also held that the arbitral tribunal is
not bound by the opinion of the expert
witnesses since the opinion of experts
are advisory in nature
1999 (7) SCC The expert witness proceed by the
280 state has no expertise in the issue so
the party appointed expert cannot be
Para- 17,18 an expert in the case.
(2012 (8) SCC the party appointed expert witnesses
21) are paid by parties and hence most of
them try to support the case of the
Para- 22 party paying their fees. As held by
Supreme Court, change of stand by an
expert in his oral evidence from that
taken in his written opinion, if
deliberate can amount to perjury by
such expert witness.
2000 (6) SCC it was held that mere assertion by the
269 expert is not sufficient to make the
report reasonable and reliable
Para- 39,40
 15/07/2019 (MONDAY)

Party appointed expert as per Section 34 of the arbitration and concilation act 1996.

S.N Case name Citation Ratio

o.
Mideast pipeline products v.
ferns construction
9 Maa Ashish textile industries pvt.
ltd. V. national insurance
company ltd.
2018 SCC The court has set aside the award
online del 8264 by giving the explanation that the
arbitrator has not considered all the
Para- 35,37,40 evidence correctly and also
misinterpreted the facts.
2019 SCC The court has set aside the award
online Bom 887 by giving the explanation that the
arbitrator has only considered the
Para – 19,26,27 evidence provided at the early
stage and ignored the rest of the
evidences.

evidence considered by tribunal

was produced by certain reports

16/07/2019 (TUESDAY)

Ravindra Singh v State of UP

in this case petitioner is been charged under section 302, 149 of Indian penal code,1860.(302-
defines punishment of murder, 149-every member who is part of an unlawful assembly is guilty of
the offence committed in prosecution of the common object).

Fact –
It’s a criminal case against the final order and judgement of Allahabad High Court. In this case three
accused out of six was convicted under sec 302/149 of IPC apart on one accused also convicted in
301 of IPC. Alleged incident of committing murder of Dharmendra singh
In this the FIR is that the informant Harnam Singh son of Mahipal Singh, resident of village
Nigoha, P.S. Shivli, District Kanpur along with his nephew Dharmendra Singh son of Iqbal Bahadur
Singh were going on motorcycle from his village to Kanpur and when they were proceeding on the
patri of Mausana Rajwaha and reached near the agricultural field of Ram Kumar Lodh, resident of
Mitanpur, finding Patri broken, the first informant got down and his nephew tried to negotiate the
passage on his motorcycle by traveling on his foot for a certain distance. As soon as his nephew
reached near the filed of Ram Kumar Lodh at about 12 noon, accused Ravindra Singh son of Shiv
Pal singh, Jai Deo Singh son of Bhola Singh, Shailendra Singh, Narendra Singh sons of Guru Bux
Singh, Naresh Singh (son-in-law of Lawa Singh), Rajan Lal, son of Nanhoo, Bawan Baghwan
Singh son of Mahavir Singh came out from bushes which were by side of Rajwaha and surrounded
his nephew and Jai Deo Singh exhorted that he would not be spared and would be killed, on this, all
the accused exhorted let him be done to death. Right then, Ravindra Singh, Jai Deo Singh, Bawan
Bhagwan Singh by the licensed guns in their hands and Naresh Singh by country made pistol made
fire upon Dharmendra Singh which hit him, the other three accused Naresh Singh, Shailendra Singh
Rajan Lal who were armed with Lathi. This occurrence was seen by him, Chandrabhan Singh son of
Amar Singh, Nagendra Bahadur singh son of Mahipal Singh, Sarnath Singh son of Khan Singh all
residents of village Nigoha, Rajjan Singh son of Rama Singh, resident of Gauri, P.S. Shivli, Bal
Krishna son of Jaswant Singh, resident of village Kharagpur, P.S. Shivrajpur. Accused Shailendra
Singh, Narendra Singh, Rajan Lal and Naresh had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the field
of paddy from Patri. His nephew died instantaneously after having received fire arm injuries, who
was killed due to enmity because against Jai Deo Singh in a case under section 409 IPC, his nephew
was witness and Jai Deo Singh had told him not to depose against him but his nephew did not
oblige him and asserted that he would certainly give evidence. Apart from that accused persons
Narendra Singh and Shailendra Singh wanted to illegally occupy his land which was in possession
of the complainant side. Rest of the accused were friends of these accused persons. When the
above-named witness challenged, they fled towards Pratappur.

17/07/2019 (WEDNESSDAY)

We attended a case of S.k Rahul v State of Odisha in the court number 4 (sitting judge- Justice
Sanjay Kishan Kaul).

Fact of the case –

This case was filed against the interim order passed by High Court. It’s a bail application which was
pending from 5year 6month petitioner was in jail till now. The deceased Keshav behra alleged to
have been murdered with gun shot by six person and the petitioner has been alleged to be one
among the six person.

18/07/2019 (THURSDAY)

Researched on the topic fitness of purpose under section 34 of arbitration and conciliation act 1996
and related case laws where award was set aside due to fitness of purpose.
S. N.o Name of case Court and Ratio
date
1 Grant v. Australian (1936) 70 Section 16(1)
Knitting Mills MLJ 513 The manufacturer is liable to provide information
(1936) 70 MLJ to buyer if anything is wrong with the product.
513
2 Greaves & Co. v. (1975) 3 All As the design rendered is inadequate as does not
Baynham Meikle ER 99 fit for purpose.
and Partners
3 Shepherd v Kane (1821)5b&Al The court held that that the buyer was entitled to
d.240 reject the goods.
4. Priest v Last (1903)2K.B. The implied condition should mean in the case as
148 it should be fit for the purpose.
5. Peter Darlington (1964) 1 An implied warranty or condition as to the quality
Partners Ltd v Lloyd's Rep. or fitness for the particular purpose may be
Gosho Co Ltd 149 annexed by the usage of trade.
6. Jackson v Watson Defendant is liable to pay the damages.

7. Shital Kumar Saini (2005) 1 the goods should be reasonably fit for the purpose
v. Satvir Singh CPR 401 for which they are sold
8. Australian (1936) A.C. the goods should be in such an actual state that the
Knitting Mills v. 562 buyer fully acquainted with the facts and,
Gran therefore, knowing that hidden defects existed and
not being limited to their apparent condition would
buy them without abatement of price obtainable
for such goods if in reasonably sound order and
condition and without any special terms
9. The Fertilizer 517 F. Supp. a fundamental breach of the implied term of the
Corporation of 948 (S.D. original contract that the plant will produce 100
India Ltd. vs. I.D.I. Ohio 1981)  metric tons per day of Methanol, the Corporation
Management was entitled to damages on account of loss of
Incorporation and June 9, 1981 production under section 16 of the Sales of Goods
Ors.
(Para – 25,
42)
10 Eternit Everest AIR 2003 sec. 16 of the Sales of Goods Act would be
. Limited vs. C.G. Ker 273, applicable as there was an implied warranty as to
Abraham & 2003 (2) the quality or fitness for the particular purpose for
Another KLT 907 which the goods were sold

Para- 12

19/07/2019 (FRIDAY)

Geeta Ranni and others. v Mohommad Iqbaal and others.

Facts-
It’s a civil case in this case husband of Geeta rani was died in car accident. This accident occurred
when deceased was driving the car on wrong side of the road while going home the respondent was
coming from the opposite side of the road but on the right side of the lane.

In this negligence happen on the part of petitioner still respondent pay for the compensation for the
lost, but now the petitioner wants more compensation form respondent. The deceased was the main
source of income for her and now she doesn’t have money to live. Petitioner seeking for more
compensation for her lost. But in this accident petitioner was at fault from the starting.

22/07/2019 (MONDAY)

Researched on the powers of district court to pursue the case under contempt of court act 1971 and
also section 10 of the act.

Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance
with the same procedure, in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to and exercises in respect of
contempt of itself. Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of contempt alleged to have
been committed in respect of a court subordinate Power of High Court to try offences committed or
offenders found outside jurisdiction.

In case of civil contempt of court an individuals can be sent to prison, corporate bodies can be
punished by fine and confiscation of assets, or by the committal of their directors or other officers.
According to section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 civil contempt means willful
disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or willful
breach of an undertaking given to a court.

S.K. Sarkar, Member, U.P. Lucknow v. Vinay Chandra Mishra, 1981 Cr LJ 283 (286)

The High Court derives its jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court. The phrase “courts
subordinate to it” used in section 10 is wide enough to include all courts which are judicially
subordinate to the High Court even though administrative control over them under Article 235 of
the Constitution does not vest in the High Court.

HARENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus MR P.K. SINHA AND OTHERS (2014) 2 Cal. 236

the power of the High Court to punish for contempt of subordinate courts functioning within the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, as if the contempt is committed of the High Court itself.

D N taneja v Bhajan Bala (1988) 3 SCC 26

The high court has the jurisdiction to punish under contempt of court from article 215 of the
constitution.

E. bapanaiah v. K.s. Raju and others. (2015) 1 SCC 451

Powers of the High court to punish for contempt including the powers to punish for contempt of
itself flow from article 215 of the constitution of India. Section 10 of the contempt of courts act
1971 empowers the high court to punish contempts of its subordinate courts. (Para-25)

Siddesh kumar v. M/s Cosmopolis Properties Pvt. Ltd. (2012 SCC online CLB 8)

The petition is filed before the court seeking directions from this Bench to initiate proceedings for
civil contempt against the second respondent herein before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras for
violating the order.

The court has made the opinion that the second respondent committed the contempt of this Bench.
The applicant may take appropriate steps before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by invoking its
jurisdiction u/s. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to prosecute the second respondent for
having breached the order of this Bench.

Munshi Lal V. Ganga Prasad (1980) 2 RD 127

The application was filed before the court praying that the Court initiate for contempt of court
against the party from interfering with the peaceful possession of the appellant which is against the
order of court. The Court found the enquiry necessary and a referred to the Hon'ble High Court.

Samsuddin Sheikh V. Collector of Customs (1993) 65 ELT 511

The court has referred the case of contempt of court to Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta under
section 10 of the contempt of the court act 1971

23/07/2019 (TUESDAY)

Navjoot Singh v Harpreet Singh it is the case of Rash and Negligent driving in which we are
representing petioner.

Fact of the case --

The petitioner was coming from to his village alhona on his motor cycle on the correct side of road
and at moderate speed when car driven by respondent on high speed rashly hit motorcycle. The
petitioner suffered multiple grievous injuries in head or leg and other part of body asking for more
compensation.

Compensation given to petitioner is not enough according to the amount of injuries caused by
respondent, petitioner was a student which was going to complete his graduation but the injuries
cause to him made him partially handicap from leg and destroy his future the compensation given to
him 500000 which include medical fees also there is some miscalculation was done on behalf of
respondent by showing the petitioner uneducated person and unemployed but petitioner is about to
complete his graduation and also taught tuition as a part time job in a month he earn 10000 to 15000
monthly. The compensation that is given is not enough for petitioner future.

24/07/2019 (WEDNESDAY)

Attended the case State of Odisha v Rohit Sarah in Court no. 11 at Hon,ble High Court ofn Delhi. In
this case we are representing the state of Odisha. The respondent has charged with illegally
acquiring and selling government property.

At office i got a reserch to find cases where amendment are made in contract through mails.

In the case of Stevens v. Publicis, a New York intermediate appellate court held that a series of
emails was sufficient to modify an employment contract, because the emails (which included
signature lines) counted as “signed writings.

Spring forest trading v Wilberry , In this the Court of Singapore held that the names written in the
bottem of the mail is considered as the digital signature. So, if the mails are send and acknoledged
by the other party then it will be considered as an amendment in the contract.

25/07/2019 (THURSDAY)

Researched on enforceability of email communication as evidence in court.

Cases for support :

1. Bhagwandas v. Girdharlal AIR 1966 SC 543 Bhagwandas v. Girdharlal

AIR 1966 SC 543 (Para – 7,8)
section 3 and section 4 of contract act are elaborated in the case and stated that documentry
evidence has more reliability then the oral evidence.

2.Trimex International FZE Limited, Dubai vs. Vedanta Aluminium Limited, India
Re (2010) 3 SCC 1 ( Para - 60 and 49)
The court held that documentry evidence are acceptable as per the contract act. Also, overrided
the oral evidence upon documentry evidence.

3. Mehta v J Pereira Fernandes S.A

The court of chancery held that the offer sent through an unsigned e-mail communication is not
sufficient and the e-mail address of the defendant cannot be deemed as his signature.

26/07/2019 (FRIDAY)

In the morning we attended case State of Odisha v Gurudhari in court no. 8 (Sittting judge -- Ashok
Bhushan) in this case we are representing the state against the order of Hon’ble High Court of
Odisha.

At office , i got a reserch in cases where documents/evidence can be produced at belated stage (after
arguments are over).

NAME CITATION PARA RATIO

Polyflor MANU/DE/0943/2016 8, 14 Delhi high court observed- "To grant leave to
Limited Vs. and permit the plaintiff to file and lead in
A.N. Goenka evidence additional documents at this stage
and Ors would mean that the defendants would be put
to serious prejudice. The defendants have not
had the occasion to deal with the said
documents. Had the documents now sought
to be produced, been produced at the relevant
time, i.e. at the stage of filing of the suit, or at
least at the time when the issues were framed,
the defendants would have had the occasion
to deal with the same by making appropriate
pleadings and filing their own documents to
counter the reliance placed by the plaintiff on
the documents in question."
It is clear that allowing the party to produce
additional documents, which were not
produced earlier, at a later stage of the
proceedings, would cast a prejudice on the
defendant.
Glencore  2017 (4) ARB LR 228 7, 12 Delhi High court observed - It is upon the
International discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal to permit
AG vs. the party to rely on certain additional
Dalmia evidence as long as the other party is not
Cement prejudiced by such late production. If after
(Bharat) production of such additional documents, the
Limited other party has full opportunity to contest the
veracity and evidentiary value of the
documents, there will be no infirmity with the
procedure adopted by the Arbitral Tribunal 
Gold Rock (2008) 149 PLR 40 12, 15 Before the leave of the court can be granted
World Trade for receiving documents as evidence at
Ltd. vs belated stage, the party producing such
Veejay documents must satisfy the court that the said
Lakshmi documents were not within the party’s
Engineering knowledge or could not be produced at
Works appropriate time in spite of due diligence.
Mohan Raj vs AIR 2003 Raj 1, 2002 8, 11 The court referring to the case Gyaniram v.
Karan Chand (4) WLN 506 Gulabchand observed- there can be no
And Ors. justification in accepting the documents at
a belated stage and rejection thereof cannot
be held to be not a sound exercise of
discretion for the reason that the
genuineness of the document may be
doubted merely on the ground that it had
been filed at a belated stage.
S. AIR 2006 Mad 221, 7, 22 It was held that where no reason is given for
Rathinaswam 2006 (2) CTC 491, late production of documents and party is
y, S/O. ... vs (2006) 3 MLJ 593 requesting to reopen the case for the purpose
S. of marking documents such shall not be
Bhanumathi, allowed by the court.
W/O.
Selvaraj
 29/07/2019 (MONDAY)

Researched on cases where filling of additional/new documents after the closure of final arguments
are not allowed.

S.No. Case name Citation Particulars

1 ARJUN (AIR 1964 No evidence can be recorded when the case is

SINGH v. SC 993) reserved for pronouncement of judgment.
MOHINDRA
KUMAR Para- 7,23

2 Rabiya Bi (2004 (4) Evidence after the matter is reserved for

Kassim M. vs KarLJ 189) pronouncement of judgment is not permissible.
The Country
Wide Para-5,10
Consumer

3 SUJATHA Vs. (1996)1 Once the Court post the case for judgment, there can
INDIAN Kant LJ be no application to recall or advance the hearing for
BANK 310 any purpose other than pronouncement of judgment.

Para- 9,10

30/07/2019 (TUESDAY)

Gagandeep Singh v State of Punjab in this case we are representing the petitioner who was kept
in illegal detention by the police authorities as there was no FIR before detention of petitioner.

Facts -
The petitioner humbly seeks the special leave to appeal to this Hon’ble Court against the final order
and judgment dated 17/11/18 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Miscellaneous. M 38821 of 2015, where by the Hon’ble High Court rejected petitioner’s
prayer for quashing
F.I.R. Brief factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner was kept in illegal detention by
the police authorities of Dugri Police station District Ludhiana since early morning of 26.10.2015.
The petitioner was picked up by the police authorities of Dugri police station at about 10am in the
morning of 26.10.2015 and thereafter in violation of statutory provisions neither any FIR was
lodged against him nor he was produced before the magistrate. One of the relative of the petitioner
filed a habeas corpus petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in order to
locate the petitioner. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 27.10.2015 appointed a warrant
officer to search along with the relatives the Dugri police station and locate the petitioner.
The warrant officer proceeded to Ludhiana and arrived at Dugri Police Station where the petitioner
was kept in custody. On inquiry being made by the warrant officer about the presence of the
petitioner in the police station the duty officer informed him that one Savinder Kaur has made a
complaint against the petitioner wherein she has alleged that an amount of Rs.804000/- was due on
the petitioner towards her and when she along with some other people came to ask for the money
from the petitioner, the petitioner manhandled her and grabbed her by her collar because of which
the button of her shirts got broken and the petitioner allegedly made her naked from her breast.

The petitioner in the presence of the police officer at the police station narrated the real factual
aspect to the warrant officer as to how the respondent police officers picked the petitioner from his
shop and kept him at the police station. The petitioner was handed over to the warrant officer by the
police authorities and later on the petitioner was released by the warrant officer. The warrant officer
vide his report dated 28.10.2015 submitted before the Hon’ble High Court brought on record the
illegal actions of the respondent police officers.

As a counter blast to the habeas corpus petition filed for the released of the petitioner the police
authorities in connivance with Savinder Kaur lodged a false FIR against the petitioner under section
354A, 323, 506 IPC at P.S. Dugri, Ludhiana City.

The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court under section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the false FIR. In the 482 Cr.P.C. petition the petitioner has highlighted the
improbabilities of the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner. However, the Hon’ble High
Court without appreciating the improbabilities highlighted in the pleadings dismissed the petition
vide the impugned order.

31/07/2019 (WEDNESDAY)

Researched on the cases where court held that documentary evidence overrides oral evidence.

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is largely based on the English law of Evidence. The Act does not
claim to be exhaustive and is procedural law. The Act consolidates, defines and amends the laws of
evidence. It is a special law and hence, will not be affected by any other enactment containing
provisions on matter of evidence unless and until it is expressly stated in such enactment or it has
been repealed or annulled by another statute. Parties cannot contract to exclude the provisions of the
Act. Courts cannot exclude relevant evidence made relevant under the Act. Similarly, evidence
excluded by the Act will be inadmissible even if essential to ascertain the truth.The object of every
judicial investigation is the enforcement of a right or liability that depends on certain facts. The law
of evidence can be called the system of rules whereby the questions of fact in a particular case can
be ascertained.
The term ‘evidence’ owes its origin to the Latin terms ‘evident’ or ‘evidere’ that mean ‘to show
clearly, to discover, to ascertain or to prove.’
Evidence includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth. Giving or
procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b)
which were proved by evidence, to demonstrate an assertion’s truth. In law, the production and
presentation of evidence depends first on establishing on whom the burden of proof lays.
Admissible evidence is that which a court receives and considers for the purposes of deciding a
particular case. It is important to prove that the evidences produced in the court are true.
Oral Evidence- Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribed the provision of recording
oral evidence. All those statements which the court permits or expects the witnesses to make in his
presence regarding the truth of the facts are called Oral Evidence. Oral Evidence is that evidence
which the witness has personally seen or heard. Oral evidence must always be direct or positive.
Evidence is direct when it goes straight to establish the main fact in issue.

Documentary Evidence- Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act says that all those documents which
are presented in the court for inspection such documents are called documentary evidences. In a
case like this it is the documentary evidence that would show the actual attitude of the parties and
their consciousness regarding the custom is more important than any oral evidence.

In case of Mideast Pipeline Products v. Fernas Construction Co. Ltd. {2018 SCC online Del.
8264} the court adopts the documentry evidence over the oral evidence (its the latest case which
exactly supports my topic).