Internship Report

INTERNSHIP REPORT
SUBMITTED TO THE FAIRFIELD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT &

TECHNOLOGY (AFFILIATED TO GGSIPU) IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF LAWS
(Five Year Integrated Course)
Unde r the Supervision of: Submitted by:

___________ _________________________
Advocate B.B.A LL.B
(________________) Enrol. No:_______
10TH SEMESTER
FAIRFIELD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY

AFFILIATED TO GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA
UNIVERSITY, DELHI
2020
DECLARATION
I,_______________, student of B.B.A.LLB10th semester, Enrolment No. __________,

studying in Fairfield Institute of Management and Technology, do hereby declare that the
Internship Report submitted to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, is a record of an
original work done by me at _______________. The cases embodied in the report have not
been submitted to any other University or Institute.
____________________________I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The internship opportunity I had was a great chance for learning and professional
development. Therefore, I consider myself fortunate as I was provided with an opportunity to
be a part of it. I am also grateful for having a chance to get acquainted with highly dignified
professionals who led me though this internship period.
Bearing in mind, I am using this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude and advance my
special thanks towards _______________________ who in spite of being extraordinarily
busy with her duties, took time out to hear, guide and keep me on the correct path and
allowed me to carry out my project.
I perceive this opportunity as a milestone in my career and personal development. I aim to
strive and use the acquired skills and knowledge in the best possible manner, as I pledge to
continue to work and improve inter-personal skills, in order to attain desired career
objectives.
Sincerely,
________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Declaration
2. Internship Certificate
3. Acknowledgment
4. Table of Cases
5. Research Work
6. Internship Cases
7. Research Project
8. Conclusion
CASE LAWS
SERIAL
LIST OF CASE LAWS
NO.
(1.) Star Wear Workers Lal Jhanda Union V. Star Wear (P) Ltd.
(2.) Directorate of Enforcement V. Para Sodhi &Ors
(3.) India Assurance Ltd. V. Arjun Chandran & Ors.
(4.) Shri Tochan Singh V. Shri Hardiyal Singh & Ors.
(5.) Vinod Kumar Bai and anr. v. Wallmart International Ltd.
(6.) State v. Vankatesh Raman
(7.) Raj Kumar Aggarwal v. M/s Gold Plasters Ltd. And Ors.
(8.) Dr. Satyam Minocha v. Smt. Indumala Kaur and Anr.
(9.) Delnaaz v/s Jaspreet Singh Jolly & ors.
(10.) Ram Engineers v. Easum Reyrolle Ltd.
(11.) Rani v. Sham Lal
(12.) DAYAMUDDIN V/S DDA
(13.) M/s Mayco hoist & cranes mfg. Co v/s M/s Surya Pharmaceuticals ltd.
(14.) Pratishtha v. Brij Mohan
(15.) State v. Neeraj Maan
(16.) Himanshi Singh V. Himank Kumar Singh
(17.) State v. Ram Vilas Singh
(18.) Mr. Deewakar Gandas v. Mr. Uddham Chand
(19.) Ms. Neha Mohan v. Ms Sneh Bhatia & Ors.
(20.) Shri Fiza Hussainara v. Zaffar Hussainara
(21.) Prem Mohan V. Geetanjali
(22.) C.V. Ramma Babu V. SunFeast Tours &Holidays & Ors.
(23.) Mohd. Rafi V. North MCD
(24.) Vivek Dhani v. Jasbir Dhingra

(25.) Anish Yadav V. Cobra Pvt. Ltd.
(26.) Telco. Co-Operating House Society Ltd. V. Shri Marotroa Ram Chandra
(27.) Mahima Singh V. Mr. Rohan Kr. Singh
(28.) State V. Mohan Singh Rohatgi
(29.) Rohit Singh V. State of Delhi
(30.) Wall mart Int. Ltd. V. Printit Retailer Ltd.
(31.) Om Prakash Dhania V. M/s Arun Dev Builders Pvt. Ltd.
(32.) Umang Resources V. Indian Newspaper Society & Ors.
(33.) Hi-BRO India Pvt. Ltd.- Mr. Jean Philippe Jacques Gorges Laborde & Ors.
(34.) Jayant VasantRao V. Anoop Bobde & Ors.
(35.) Prince It Solutions Vs. Force Solutions
RESEARCH WORK
SERIAL LIST OF RESEARCH WORK PAGE

NO. NO.
(1.) DISCHARGE OF ONUS U/S 68 OF INCOME 47
TAX ACT.
(2.) WHEREVER THE SHARE APPLICATION 48-49
MONEY WAS RECEIVED THROUGH
NORMAL BANKING CHANNELS AND
SHARE WERE ACTUALLY ALLOTTED
TO THE SHARE APPLICANT AND FULL
PARTICULARS OF THE INVESTOR DULY
PROVIDED, NO ADDITION COULD BE
MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT.
(3.) SOURCE OF SOURCE WAS INTRODUCED IN 50
SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,
1961 W.E.F 01.04.2013 I.E. AY 2013-2014
i. ONUS ON THE APPELLANT COMPANY
TO PROVE THE "SOURCE OF SOURCE
OF FUNDS" WAS NOT MANDATE OF
LAW IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL.
ii. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF
THE ACT AS APPLICABLE FOR THE
YEAR UNDER APPEAL DID NOT CAST
ON ONUS UPON AN ASSESSEE TO
PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OF
THE DEPOSIT.
iii. THE CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT
TO SECTION 68 IS APPLICABLE I.E. 01-
04-2013 I.E. A/Y 2013-14 AND ONWARDS
AS SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY
LAW.
CASE 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(ORIGINAL COMPANY JURISDICTION)
COMPANY PETITION NO. 228 OF 1996
IN THE MATTER OF:
STAR WEAR WORKERS … PETITIONER

LAL JHANDA UNION
VERSUS
STAR WEAR (P) LTD. … RESPONDENT
SUBJECT- WINDING UP OF RESPONDENT COMPANY
BRIEF FACTS
A Petition was filed for Winding up of the Respondent Company, on behalf of the Workers
through the Workers‟ Union, on the grounds that the Respondent-company was unable to pay
its debts. The company was not in the financial position to carry on the business, thereby, it
shut its factory at Lajpat Nagar industrial area, without clearing the dues of the workers.
It was prayed in the Petition that the Respondent Company should be able not take away any
machinery, equipment, material, etc. from its factory at Lajpat Nagar, and if the Company is
allowed then a proper inventory and details are to be prepared. It was also prayed to appoint a
Local Commissioner with direction to him for preparation of inventory. As the factory had
been sealed by various authorities it requested on behalf of the workers that the lock and seal
of the Factory at Lajpat Nagar was opened by the AuthoritiesProvident Fund and ESIC.
OBSERVATION
The Respondent company is financially ill and not in the position to carry out business of any
sort, profitable or loss- making. The official liquidator was appointed and was given the
responsibility to liquidate the assets of the company, and distribute them among the creditors,
accordingly. Whereas, the two major entities effected by the halt in the business are the
Workers of the company, and Corporation Bank, to whom the Company owe s a significant
amount in dues and late payments.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 18T H September, 2020

CASE 2
BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLANT TRIBUNAL
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002
4TH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET,
NEW DELHI- 110003

APPEAL NO. OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF:
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

….APPELLANT
V.
PARAG SODHI AND OTHERS

….RESPONDENTS
BRIEF FACTS
CBI received information that Sh. MT Mahapatra, chairman and managing director,
Syndicate Bank indulged in corrupt practices by extending undue favour to various private
companies and corporate houses by granting sanctions to their loan proposals in lieu of illegal
gratifications. Pursuant to this CBI, AC-I, New Delhi, registered a FIR bearing No. AC 1-
2014-0004 dt 01.08.14 against SK Jain, Ex CMD Syndicate Bank and others for offences u/s
120-B IPC r/w section 7,12,13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Illegal gratification was received by him through his close relatives, Sh. Parag Sodhi and Sh
SandeepSodhi, Respondents herein, both brothers- in- law of SK Jain, through illegal channels
by middleman Sh. Vijay Ahuja @ Soni, & others, in two instalments, as allegedly bribe of
Rs. 50 Lacs was demanded by MT Mahapatrafrom Parag Sodhi, of Rs. 17 lacs and Rs. 33
Lacs, same recovered by CBI by laying a trap. Sh SK Jain was in regular touch with ShParag
Sodhi, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL) in
respect of corporate credit matter related to the bank.
M/s BSL had defaulted in the payment of instalment of Rs. 100 Crores on a bank loan and its
account with the bank was likely to be declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA).
OBSERVATION
The above case pertains to alleged offence of Money Laundering, alle gations were directed
towards Parag Sodhi& Others. The issue of the case is that CBI had a significant amount, Rs.
50 Lacs, confiscated from the car of the accused, the money so confiscated, as alleged by the
CBI, is an advancement made by Sh. Parag Sodhi, chairman Bhushan Steel, towards the then
Manager of Syndicate Bank, Sh MT Mahapatra, so that he may not declare the unpaid loan of
Bhushan Steel as a non-performing asset.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 18th May, 2020

CASE 3
IN THE COURT OF SH. PUNIT PAHWA, LEARNED METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

INDIA ASSURANCE LTD. ................................................................... COMPLAINANT
V.
ARJUN CHANDRAN& ORS ............................................................................... ACCUSED
SUBJECT - DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE
BRIEF FACTS
Arjun Chandran, the accused approached the complainant for loan as he was in dire need of
money for the expansion of his business. The complainant considering his request arranged
the amount and sanctioned a loan of Rs. 58,96,957 to the accused which was to be repaid in
EMI. The accused issued a cheque to be presented in case of any default in repayment. The
accused denied EMI for 2 consecutive months. So, the said cheque was sent for collection by
the complainant but was dishonoured reason being “funds insufficient”. A demand notice was
issued within a month in the name of the accused for the payment of the amount within 15
days from the date of receipt of notice. Accused however, stated that no loan was provided to
him, the agreement was never discharged and the cheque given was a pre-issued cheque
which was illegally presented.
OBSERVATION
There were insufficient funds in the account of the drawer. Complainant followed the
prescribed procedure and acted accordingly, but no payment was made whereas according to
the accused no such agreement was there, the complainant misused the pre-dated cheque.
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 will be considered in resolving the matter of dishonour of
cheque and validity of cheque along with the procedure which a drawee/payee should duly
follow after a cheque is dishonoured.
NEXT DATEOF HEARING: 29th July 2020

CASE 4
IN THE COURT OF SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN, CJ, TIS HAZARI COURT, NEW
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

SHRI TOCHAN SINGH. ............................................................................. PLAINTIFF
V.
SHRI HARDIYAL SINGH AND ORS.........................................................DEFENDANTS
SUBJECT - SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
BRIEF FACTS
Plaintiff is the son of Defendant 1, residing in the house other than where Defendant 1
resides. Plaintiff, D2 and D3 are real brothers. D1 purchased a property Measuring 140sq
yards in 1989 in the name of his wife. An oral partition was agreed among the 3 brothers, I.e.
Plaintiff, D2 and D3. In 1993, the wife of D1 died. Plaintiff requested the Defendants for
partition by Metes and bounds in writing but they refused.
D2 and D3 raised construction on their said part but due to some unavoidable circumstances
the Plaintiff could not. There was, however, continuous trespass in the share of Plaintiff.
Police and society intervened, which resulted in Plaintiff being advised to approach the court
for permanent injunction. The case is before the Hon‟ble court and the Plaintiff is asked to
prove that there was any such partition with the help of evidence by the way of affidavits. On
the next date the Plaintiff needs to file the list of witnesses.
OBSERVATION
The Plaintiff is a legal heir of the property though the partition was oral but it was/is reliable.
Partition is a decision which can be either expressed or implied. Here, D2 and D3 have raised
the construction over their share (I.e. 46.3 sq. yards each) leaving 46.3 sq. Yards which
automatically indicates belongingness to Plaintiff. Even though 50% of the 140 sq yards was
in the name of the wife of D1 and the rest is in the name of D1 himself, it can be concluded
that Plaintiff also has a right over the property as he is one of the legal heir, while others are
enjoying their rights, Plaintiff cannot be denied to have control over his expressed and
implied share.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 26th June 2020

CASE 5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER CASE [CRIMINAL] NO. 4 OF 2012
IN THE MATTER OF
VInod KUMAR BAI AND ANR ...PETITIONER(S)
V.
WALLMART INTERNATIONAL LTD. ..............................................RESPONDENT(S)
SUBJECT: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN THE OFFENCE OF DISHONOUR

OF CHEQUES
BRIEF FACTS
A complaint was filed in Saket, New Delhi. It is an instant transfer case. petitioner seeking
transfer filed before high court. It is pending before M.M, Saket Court. High court allowed
the transfer of petition to Supreme Court. Dashrath judgement was passed. A chaos has been
created due to above said judgement. An amendment was enacted by the parliament. .
Petitioner challenged the territorial jurisdiction. The account of the Petitioner is in Delhi and
the account of the Respondent is in Ludhiana. According to the amendment, the case should
have been maintained in Delhi. However, due to typographical error, the case pending before
the Supreme Court was transferred to Ahmadabad instead of Delhi. First hearing is to be held
before M.M, Saket, delhi. It is necessary that this court may suitably modify the old order.
Transfer the complaint from Ahmadabad to Delhi.
OBSERVATION
A chaos has been created in commercial, industrial and financial institutions after the
judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod V. State of Maharashtra and Anr. In this case,
Supreme Court held that the territorial jurisdiction for the cases of “dishonour of cheque” will
be tried in court within the local jurisdiction. Subsequent to the judgement, the Negotiable
Instrument Act (amendment) 2015, has been passed by the parliament, which stated that
offence under section 138 shall be inquired and tried by a court within whose local
jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee is situated.
The case was disposed off.
CASE 6
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NILESH VERMA, TIS HAZARI COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE ...COMPLAINANT
V.
VANKATESH RAMAN ...ACCUSED
SUBJECT: PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL

CODE.
BRIEF FACTS
The Accused, in the above case, is the husband of Sukriti (deceased). They both got married
in 2012. The Accused was not happy with the marriage. Soon after their marriage G.
Venkatesh (Accused) allegedly started torturing his wife. Sukriti was, as reported, from a
middle class family. She and her family were ready to adjust in order to work out the
marriage between Venkatesh and herself. However, the Accused didn‟t want the marriage to
work at all and he did, all he could, in order to get rid from his marriage and wife. On 2 nd
April 2014, the Accused pushed his wife down from a flight of stairs. She sustained a serious
head injury, as her head banged against the iron railings in the staircase. She started bleeding,
a lot, medical assistance was required immediately. However, the Accused didn‟t arrange for
any medical assistance or support for his wife, who was fighting for her life. When she was
taken to the hospital she was declared dead by the doctors.
OBSERVATION
The Accused shall be held liable under section 302, IPC. He had criminal intent and he
committed the acts which lead to the death of his wife. He, clearly, wasn‟t happy from his
marriage and his wife. By looking at the chain of event and also, the statement of the
neighbours, it was clear that he wanted his marriage to succumb by hook or crook. The act,
so, committed by the Accused was enough to cause death of his wife. The Accused shall not
be given the benefit of doubt as there was enough evidence to prove him guilty and punish
him under section 302, IPC.
NEX T DATE OF HEARI NG: 5 July 2020.

th
CASE 7
IN THE COURT OF MRS. KAVERI BAWEJA, ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURT, NEW
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
RAJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ...................................................................... PLAINTIFF
V.
M/S GOLD PLASTER LTD AND ORS ..................................................DEFENDANTS
SUBJECT - RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT AND THE AMOUNT TOWARDS

TAX AS WELL AS PENALTY AS AGREED IN THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED.
BRIEF FACTS
Plaintiff owns a property (absolute ownership) in village Basaidarapur, Delhi. D1 is a private
Ltd. Company and D1-D5 are its directors and all of them have effective control over the
functions and working of D1. Plaintiff is the owner of the property whereas the Defendants
are the lease holders. They entered into a lease deed from 01.08.2012 to 30.09.2014.
Defendants while depositing rent deducted 10% as TDS but didn‟t deposit the same with
ITD. Now, for this the Plaintiff was compelled to deposit tax on his own. According to the
lease deed the payable amount was Rs. 13,47,428, amount actually paid was Rs. 9,17,094
and the outstanding rent is Rs. 4,30,334. According to clause 4 mentioned in the lease deed, it
states that Rs. 500 per day is to be levied as penalty for delayed rent payment, if the delay
was for more than 3 days. Accordingly the suit was valued. The Hon‟ble court instructed to
proceed with the Defendant's evidence on the next date by the way of affidavits. The counsel
for Plaintiff has closed his evidence.
OBSERVATION
An admitted lease deed was present. The Defendants were bound by its terms and
conditions. The Defendants didn‟t seek for any separate invoice. The Defendants didn‟t pay
the total amount of rent and service tax; also, they haven‟t issued a T.D.S certificate to the
Plaintiff.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING:18 th July 2020
CASE 8
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MUKESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ADJ PATIALA HOUSE

COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
DR. SATYAM MINOCHA …PLAINTIFF
V.
SMT. INDUMALA KAUR AND ANR …DEFENDANTS
SUBJECT- DEFAMATION AND HARM TO REPUTATION /SUIT FOR DAMAGES

FOR RS. 15,00,000
BRIEF FACTS
Plaintiff is a senior scientist at Health Physics Group, New Delhi 110067. Defendant No. 1 is
the sister- in-law of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 is closely known to Defendant No. 1. A
police complaint was filed against the Plaintiff by the Defendants. It included that the
Plaintiff misbehaved with the Defendants on 08.01.2015 and trespassed. According to the
Plaintiff, Defendants with an ill motive made false and defamatory statements against the
Plaintiff. Due to this, the career of the Plaintiff and his services are at stake. Compensation
was demanded against this by the Plaintiff for Rs. 15,00,000, out of which Rs. 10,00,000
from D1 and Rs. 5,00,000 from D2. The Hon‟ble court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff is
asking for a very unreasonable amount whereas the Defendants are not able to prove their
claims.
OBSERVATION
The Defendants filed a complaint alleging that the Plaintiff had misbehaved and trespassed.
The statement of Plaintiff regarding defamation was not supported by the circumstances. The
suit filed by the Plaintiff doesn‟t fulfil the essentials of defamation. The Plaintiff is asking
very high compensation. The case may get referred to the Mediation centre.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 28th August 2020

CASE- 9
IN THE COURT OF MAHAVIR SINGHAL, ADJ, TIS HAZARI, NEW DELHI.

SUIT NO. 200/14
IN THE MATTER OF
DELNAZ… Plaintiff
V/S
JASPREET SINGH JOLLY & OTHERS Defendant
SUBJECT MATTER- Suit for declaration, possession, damages & permanent

injunction.
FACTS: The plaintiff purchased the suit property from defendant no.4 in the suit. She paid
full amount for furnishing the same in advance.
The plaintiff was later illegally restrained to enter the suit property by the defendant 1,2 &3.
The defendant no. 1-3 have illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit property & taken
the forcible possession thereof.
The plaintiff being a bona fide purchaser of the suit property thus approached the court to
obtain a decree of declaration for peaceful possession & permanent injunction.
OBSERVATION: - Both the advocates of the parties were present & addressed the
arguments on an application filed by def u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING AND PURPOSE: 31-08-2019. Matter was adjourned for
passing of the orders for said application.
CASE- 10
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA, ADJ CENTRAL DELHI.
SUIT NO. 97/2016
IN THE MATTER OF-

RAM ENGINEERS Petitione r
V/S
EASUN REYROLLE LTD Defendant
SUBJECT MATTER- Suit for recovery of amount.
FACTS:
That the plaintiff runs a business of trading of electrical equipments. The
plaintiff purchased some pre paid systems as per the demand of its customers
from the defendant.
Later, the meters were discovered defective & were not properly working.
Plaintiff intimated defendant about the fault & required defendant to replace the
faulty meters but defendant did not respond & did not avail to it. Thus, the
plaintiff approached the court for recovery of sum & seeking pedenti lite.
OBSERVATION:
The matter was restricted for before argument for issue of territorial jurisdiction.
The counsel for the defendant stated that this court has no jurisdiction as there is
a barring clause in the invoices & the jurisdiction have been confined by the
parties or the courts. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the court has no
jurisdiction. The parties cannot confer jurisdiction by contract or any court
which otherwise does not have jurisdiction.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING AND PURPOSE: 24-03-2020. The matter was adjourned for
passing order of the issue of jurisdiction.
CASE LAW- 11
IN THE COURT OF MR.CHANDRA BOSE, CIVIL JUDGE, SR, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
CS NO. 424/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:-
RANI Petitione r
V/S
SHAM LAL Respondent
SUBJECT MATTER:- Contempt Petition u/s 12 of Contempt of Courts Act , 1981and

u/s 151 CPC, 1908.
FACTS: -
Petitioner is legally wedded wife of Respondent. Respondent deprived the
Petitioner from roof on her head. So Petitioner approached the court for
Permanent Injunction. But Respondent continued to harass her. Under the garb
of executing the decree which the respondent had obtained in another case
against his son pertaining to one portion of house in which plaintiff resides, the
Respondent permanently put locks on the entrance of the gate. The Petitioner
was deprived of her residence, therefore she approached the court by the way of
Contempt Petition of that Respondent seeking punishment or deliberately for
violating his undertaking to the court as the directions of the court.
OBSERVATION: -
The Petitioner appeared along with her lawyer and Respondent also. After
hearing the Petitioner the court directed the Respondent to open the lock of the
main premises. The Respondent also gave an undertaking he shall open the lock
immediately. On the basis of this statement of Respondent the court held that no
purpose would be served to continue with the Contempt Petition as the matter is
been solved between the parties. Hence the case was disposed off.
CASE LAW- 12
IN THE COURT OF CHHAVI KAPOOR CJ.
SUIT NO. 286/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:

DAYAMUDDIN Plaintiff
V/S
DDA Defendant
SUBJECT MATTER:- Suit for permanent injunction.
FACTS:
That the plaintiff is the owner of the plot of land & the plaintiff is in peaceful
possession of the suit property. But the plaintiff‟s peaceful possession was
disturbed by the defendant. The defendant without the permission of the
plaintiff started digging the land of the plot. The defendant threatened the
plaintiff that he would construct the boundary walls around the plot of the
plaintiff. Thus the plaintiff approached the court for obtaining as decree of
permanent injunction from restraining any third person from interfering with his
property.
OBSERVATION: -
The matter was listed for final arguments. The counsel for the plaintiff argued
the matter & submitted that the suit property belongs to him & DDA has no
right over the property. The learned judge directed the plaintiff to take steps to
impede the erstwhile honors.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 14-04-2020.

CASE LAW- 13
IN THE COURT OF DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S MAYCO HOIST & CRANES MFG. CO ….Petitione r

V/S
M/S SURYA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD … Respondent
SUBJECT MATTER: Petition for winding up u/s 433(e) & sec 439 of the Companies
Act, 1956.
FACTS:
That the petitioner is a proprietorship firm. Respondent purchased four lifts &
hoists with 355 claddings from the petitioner for which the respondent made
partial payment.
Petitioner sent legal notice to the respondent for the payment but the respondent
did not made the payment. Thus the petitioner approached the court for seeking
an order for Winding Up of the respondent company to seek awards for the
petition.
OBSERVATION: -
The advocate of the petitioner submitted that respondent has not filed reply despite having
been given several opportunities to the respondent. The advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the respondent company has been registered or filed before a (BIFR) & the respondent
has been registered there.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING AND PURPOSE: The honb‟le company judge disposed off
the petition for reviewing it.
CASE LAW – 14
IN THE COURT OF SMT. REKHA RANI PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
PRATISHTHA
V.
BRIJ MOHAN
SUBJECT MATTER:-Application for maintenance unde r section 125 of Code Of

Criminal Procedure, 1973
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

• That the marriage between the petitioner Pratishtha and the respondent Brij Mohan
was solemnized as per Hindu Rites, Custom on 11/02/2015.
• That the due to regular fights and dispute an frustration arise between the relationship
of the husband and wife, as well as respondent many times ask the petitioner to leave his
house.
• That the on 20/09/2016 petitioner left the house of her husband and moved to her
parents house. The petitioner in her application also stated that the respondent also have
regular drinking habit.
• PRESENT DAY :-
On the present day of 13/July/2017 the petitioner file a application under section 125 of Code
Of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court issued a summon for calling respondent to the court
and ask for the reply of notice filed by the petitioner.
OBSERVATION :-
On the present day I got to know about the provision of section 125 of Code of Criminal
Procedure as well as about the concept of summon.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: - 5/03/2020

CASE LAW-15
IN THE COURT OF SHRI. RAJEEV BANSAL ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE
SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:-

STATE
V.
NEERAJ MAAN
SUBJECT MATTER:- Bail application under section 439 of Code of Criminal

Procedure on behalf of accused.

• Mrs.Kavita lodged a F.I.R. on 25/5/2016 no. as 141/16 under section 498(A) of Indian
Penal Code against her husband Neeraj Kumar and his family.
• According to the allegation of F.I.R. Mr.Neeraj was having drinking habit and he used
to beat victim without any reason, as well as his family use to torture her mentally. When this
incident increases the victim Kavita lodged an F.I.R. in nearby police station.
• From 26/05/2016 till present day the accused is in jail, therefore the bail application
was first filed in the METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE court under section 437 of code of
criminal procedure but it was rejected.
• PRESENT DAY :-
The case was fixed before the session court at 18/01/2020. In which accused council filed an
application for bail under section 439 of code of criminal procedure. After listing all the
arguments of the council the session court granted the bail to the accused with the condition
of bail bond OF Rs.50, 000.
OBSERVATIONS:-
I came to know about the provision of section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure on which
session court have the special power to grand bail even it is firstly rejected by the M.M. of the
court.
CASE LAW-16
IN THE COURT OF SMT. REKHA RANI PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:-

HIMANSHI SINGH
V.
HIMANK KUMAR SINGH
SUBJECT MATTER : Petition under section 12 (a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as
amended by the marriage laws for nullity of the marriage on the ground of the
impotency of the husband.

• The marriage between the petitioner Himanshi Singh and the respondent Himank
Singh was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs on 15/9/2015 at New Delhi.
• The petitioner submits that the respondent is an impotent from the day one from the
marriage and it not medically fit to perform a normal married life.
• That the petitioner also submits that impotency of the respondent is permanent and
there is no treatment of such incapability. Whereas, respondent submits that he came to know
at his impotency after the marriage only and further he doesn‟t wants to hurt the feeling of the
petitioner.
• PRESENT DAY:-
The Matter was fixed for today 02/02/2020 before the hon‟ble court. In which both petitioner
as well as respondent were present in person along with their council. Respondent have
submitted the reply of the notice filed by the petitioner.
OBSERVATIONS:-
After attending this court session I came to know about the grounds of nullity of Hindu
marriage as well as the nature of the court while dealing these kinds of cases, like to observe
the intentions of the petitioner and respondent.
CASE LAW-17
IN THE COURT OF SMT. SHERYA ARORA METHA METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:-

STATE
V.
RAM VILAS SINGH
SUBJECT MATTER:- Application For bail under section 437 of Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973
• Vikas Singh who is the resident of Saket only committed the offence under section
354 of Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. against the accused was lodged by victim Rekha on
21/05/2017 no. as 241/16 on which the accused was arrested next day.
• According to the allegation of F.I.R. the dispute arise due to the parking of car on the
gate of the victim‟s house. When victim Radha came out from her house and asked accused
to park his car somewhere else ,Vikas firstly start shouting on her and the start abusing her
badly and when Radha replied back to him for not to abuse , accused hit her on her breast and
ran away. This whole incident took place near about 8:00p.m. In night. Then Radha call
police and then police lodged an F.I.R. and start investigating the case.
• The accused Vikas is in jail from the date of arrest till now.
• PRESENT DAY :-
On the present day of 19/Jan/2020 the council on behalf of accused filed the bail application
under section 437 of code of criminal procedure. After listing to the points of arguments on
which bail should be granted, the Hon‟ble court accepted the application of bail and bail was
granted on the bail bond of 50,000 by one surety.
OBSERVATIONS:-
I have come to know about the provision of section 437 of code of criminal procedure which
enables the court to grant bail under non- bailable offence.

CASE LAW-18
In the court of Sh. Sushil Anuj Tyagi Ld. ACJ/CC/ARC: Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Deewakar Gupta
V.
Mr. Uddam Chand
SUBJECT MATTER: Civil suit for possession and partition under section 9 of The
Civil Code Of Procedure and Section 3&4 of The Partition Act
FACTS:
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff alleging that he along with his mother is the co-owner of
the suit property. He has further stated that his mother has died and now he has 7/12 share in
the suit property. He wants that the suit property may be partitioned and his share there in
may be separated. Hence, he has filed the present suit.
The defendant in their defence is alleging that his mother has excluded will in their favor and
as such they are absolute owners of her mother‟s share. They further alleged that the plaintiff
had only a benani share in the suit property and in fact their mother was the real owner.
The case at the stage of evidence being recorded.
OBSERVATION:
This suit was today fixed for final arguments were filed by Deewakar Gupta. The opposite
party has also moved an application and now this case stands adjourned for 25th April, 2020
for final arguments.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 25/04/2020

CASE LAW-19
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Neha Mohan
V.
Ms. Sneh Bhatia and Ors.
SUBJECT MATTER: Suit for cancellation of agreement to sell under the provisions of
the Contract Act.
FACTS:
The plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit property to the defendants but they failed to pay the
entire amount of sale consideration to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff further states that he has
terminated the agreement to sell and thus filed suit possession for suit property which was
given to defendants by her at the time of execution of agreements to sell.
The defendants have taken the defense they have always been ready and willing to pay the
sale consideration to the plaintiff but she has not accepted the same with malafide intentions.
The suit is at the stage of recording evidence.
OBSERVATION:
The case was fixed for framing of issues because the pleadings were already complete. The
Ld. Judge was pleased to frame issues and adjourned the matter for evidence of plaintiff. The
parties were directed to file the list of witnesses within 10 days and further to supply the copy
of the affidavits of witnesses 15 days before.

CASE LAW-20
IN THE HON’BLE TIS HAZARI COURTS, New Delhi:
IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri. Fiza Hussainara
V.
Zaffar Hussainara and Others
SUBJECT MATTER: Appeal against decree under Orde r 41 Rule 1 CPC

FACTS:
Fiza Hussainara had filed a suit for possession on the ground that the suit property forms the
part of the property which is owned by him under a registered sale deed. This suit of Fiza
Hussainara has been dismissed by the trial court and as such Fiza Hussainara has filed an
appeal against Zafar Hussain which is pending adjudication i.e. for arguments.
OBSERVATION:
This is an appeal filed by appellant because his suit was dismissed by the trial court. The case
was fixed for arguments. Arguments could not take place because an objection was raised by
the respondent that council for appellant can‟t argue the case because he has been appearing
on his behalf. The council was appellant, therefore for adjournment for looking into the
matter for appointment of new council. The case was adjourned for hearing on 16.05.2020 for
further proceedings.

CASE LAW-21
In the Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi:
IN THE MATTER OF:
Prem Chand
V.
Geetanjali
SUBJECT MATTER: Suit for possession on the basis of will unde r section 9 CPC
FACTS:
Prem Chand has filed a suit for possession stated that his wife who insists that had executed a
will in his favor and as such he is within his rights to claim possession of the suit property
from Smt. Geeta who is his real daughter.
Smt.Geeta has taken the plea that the suit property is owned by her and his mother has never
executed any will in favor of her father Shri. Prem Chand.
OBSERVATION:
This case was fixed for filing for the application and for argument on an application under
article 39 rule 1 and 2. The Lt. presiding officer was however on leave. The reader of the
court with the consent of both the parties adjourned the suit for 6th may 2020 for the purpose
already fixed.
CASE LAW-22
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH ADJ, TIS HAZARI COURTS , NEW
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

C.V Ramana Babu
V.
Sun Feast Tours & Holidays & others
SUBJECT MATTER: Suit for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, electricity

charges, maintenance charges, future damages &mesne profits, with interest along with
affidavit.
FACTS:
The plaintiff has filed this suit alleging that she has purchased the suit property and the
defendant being a tenant there in is liable to pay rent. Hence the plaintiff has filed this suit for
recovery of arrears of rent.
The defendant has taken the plea the person from whom the plaintiff alleges to have purchase
the suit property was not the owner of the suit property and hence defendant is not liable to
pay rent to the plaintiff.
OBSERVATION:
The plaintiff had filed the instant suit for injunction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent
on 18.12.2018. The case was today fixed for the service of the defendant .All defendants
were duly served .The filed their written statement in the court, copy of which was given to
the plaintiff whom we represent .The case is now fixed for 12.06. 2020 for filling of the
application by the plaintiff as well as argument for application under Order 39Rule 2.

CASE LAW-23
IN THE COURT OF MS. EKTA GABA, ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Mohd Rafi
VS.
North M.C.D
SUBJECT MATTER: Petition for eviction of tenant under section 14(1)
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act
FACTS:
Mohd Rafi and his brothers etc have filed a petition under section14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent
Control Act,1958 stating that the suit premises where north MCD is running a primary school
is required bonafidely by the petitioners in as much as they have acute shortage of
accommodation available to them.
The North M.C.D has taken the defense that the petitioner i.eMohd Rafi and others are not
the owner and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the
petition his liable to be dismissed.
OBSERVATION:
The petitioner had filed this petition under section14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control ACT ,1958
alleging that he requires the tenanted premises for their bonafide requirement .In this case the
respondent had filed an application for leave to represent the eviction petition .The reply has
also been filed by the petitioner .The case today was fixed for arguments on this application
for leave to defendant .However the Lt. Judge adjourned the hearing for 10.3.2020 for the
reason that on the last DATE OF HEARING ,she was on leave.

CASE 24
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHALENDER MALIK SCJ, ROHINI COURTS, NEW
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
VIVEK DHANI ...PLAINTIFF
V.
JASBIR DHINGRA ...DEFENDANT
SUBJECT - RETAINING THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF THE HOUSE AND
CLAIMING COMPENSATION
BRIEF FACTS :
Jasbir Dhingra (Defendant) is currently residing in the house owned by Vivek Dhani
(Plaintiff). Vivek Thani initially gave it on lease to Jasbir Dhingra. Later, when the contract
expired, Plaintiff didn‟t want to renew the contract. Vivek Dhani didn‟t want to continue the
current agreement and wanted Jasbir Dhingra to vacate the house. However, Jasbir Dhingra
wanted to misrepresent and put forth the fact that the contract of lease had already been
renewed. The Defendant in his defence stated that he had paid the increased monthly rent,
i.e., 10% more than what he used to pay initially. Also, Jasbir Dhingra, continuously ignored
the notices sent by the owner of the house, i.e., Vivek Dhani. To this, Jasbir Dhingra said
that, he didn‟t know nor he was aware about any notices that were sent to him regarding this
issue. Jasbir Dhingra further added that, it was the neighbours who told him about the notice
that were sent by Vivek Thani. Now, it is being demanded by the Plaintiff that his house is to
be vacated immediately; also, he demands to be compensated for the inconvenience he had to
face.
OBSERVATION:
The observation drawn from the above stated facts is that, Jasbir Dhingra didn‟t want to
vacate the house. The Defendant wanted the Plaintiff to extend the contract between them by
reaching an agreement to pay an increased amount as the monthly rent which the Defendant
used to pay earlier. Although, increased rent wasn‟t desired by the Plaintiff because he didn‟t
want to renew the lease contract. The Defendant also, tried to delay the procedure in order to
strike a negotiation with the Plaintiff by mentioning his unawareness about the notices sent
by the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff wanted his house to be vacated by the Defendant.
Also, Vivek Thani, i.e., the Plaintiff demanded compensation as a result for the
inconvenience caused to him by the uncalled for actions of Jasbir Dhingra, i.e., the
Defendant.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 13th April 2020

CASE 25
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
ANISH YADAV ...PLAINTIFF
V.
COBRA PVT LTD. .......................................................................................... DEFENDANT
SUBJECT: RECOVERY OF THE DUE AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY THE COBRA
PVT LTD.
BRIEF FACTS:
In this case, Plaintiff was an employee in the company of the Defendant for several years.
The Plaintiff was diligent during his time in the company. He worked effectively and
efficiently over the years. However, the Plaintiff was forced by the higher authorities of the
company to quit his job recently, even though, he didn‟t want to. Due to continued pressure
by the authorities, the Plaintiff finally had to quit. However, the Plaintiff wasn‟t paid the
amount due to him for his services he had rendered over the years. The Plaintiff was only
paid Rs.8 lacs as total settlement for all the dues still pending toward him. However,
according to the Plaintiff, he presented documents such as the appointment letter, appraisal
letter and other documents, which states that the amount to be more than already paid by the
company. The Plaintiff stated a sum of Rs. 38 lacs that the company owes him.
OBSERVATION
The observation drawn from the above case is that the Plaintiff is seeking justice by
addressing his matter in the court; the matter brought about is that the Plaintiff, according to
the Defendant company, has already been compensated for the services rendered by him.
However, the Plaintiff feels differently. The Plaintiff claims that the compensation paid
toward him doesn‟t clear the dues and it doesn‟t stand for final settlement. The Plaintiff had
worked diligently for the Defendant; he was made to quit his job for reasons best known to
the authorities. The Plaintiff demands Rs. 38 lacs as total and final amount which will suffice
the settlement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, the Defendant states that
the Plaintiff is exaggerating and the company has already provided the Plaintiff the
compensation it deems correct.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 19th March 2020
CASE 26
BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
TELCO CO- OPERATING HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ...REVISIONIST
V.
SHRI MAROTROA RAMCHANDRA KHADGI AND ANR ….RESPONDENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF CONSUMER ACT
BRIEF FACTS
In this case, Government allotted a number of plots to the general public. Telco Cooperating
Housing Society Ltd, were appointed to construct the allotted plots. The housing society was
put in charge for the construction of the houses. Marotrao, the respondent in this case, was
promised a house in the housing society. However, after the completion of the construction
he wasn‟t allotted a house. The reason given as to why the respondent, Marotrao, was not
allotted the promised house was because Marotrao didn‟t come on time to claim his
allotment. However, the possession of all the houses was given to other people. The housing
society was then asked, that why the respondent wasn‟t allotted the promised house in the
society, Nelco replied, that, the allotment was made on first come first serve basis. Now,
there were no houses remaining, as the possession of all the houses were given to those who
came on time for the allotment. Therefore, the respondent felt that he was on the end of being
treated unjustly by Nelco Cooperating Housing Society Ltd and thus, moved the case to
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
OBSERVATION
Observation made, in the above case is that, the plots were allotted by the government,
however, it was mentioned that the scheme was based on first come first serve basis. Nelco
Cooperating Housing Society Ltd, which was responsible for the construction of the houses,
constructed them and provided possession on time, as promised. It is to be noted that the
allotment of the houses were to be claimed by the people to whom they were allotted. Also, it
was mentioned that the possession cannot be guaranteed if a person, in this case, Marotrao,
the respondent, doesn‟t come on time to claim their possession of the house. Marotrao, the
respondent in the above case, also demands compensation for the inconvenience caused to
him because otherwise, instead of a meagre settlement he was about to become the owner of
his own house.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 14th July 2020

CASE 27
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CHIEF M.M. NIYAY BINDU, MAHILA COURT,
KARKARDOOMA, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
MAHIMA SINGH ...APPLICANT
V.
MR. ROHAN KUMAR SINGH ...RESPONDENT
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR THE MAINTENANCE UNDER SEC 125 OF

Cr.P.C, 1973.
BRIEF FACTS
Mahima Singh (applicant) is the wife of Rohit Kumar Singh (respondent). Mahima Singh, i.e,
the applicant has sued her husband under section 125 of CRPC 1973 and section
498A/406/34 of IPC. The applicant has accused that the Defendant and his family used to
demand dowry. Mahima Singh, also, mentioned that she used to be ill- treated by Rohit
Kumar Singh and his family. According to the applicant, she was abused by her husband‟s
family. The applicant said that she was forced to ask for money from her parents, by the
respondent and his family. Mahima Singh, also, stated that her family gave Rs. 25 lac in cash,
Rs. 15 lakh worth of jewellery and a Duster Car. Mahima Singh left her husband‟s house and
is currently living with her parents. The applicant is demanding maintenance, under section
125 of CRPC 1973. The respondent mentioned that the applicant is well educated and
qualified. Section 125, Cr.P.C, 1973 applies to women only with immediate financial needs.
The interim maintenance was correctly dismissed by the court, keeping in view the facts
relating to the applicant that she is an MBA and was formerly working as an HR Manager in
DainikJagaran and was earning well, Rs. 30,000 per month.
OBSERVATION
Under this catalogue the application filed by Mahima Singh doesn‟t fall under section 125,
Cr.P.C. 1973 as she is very much capable of maintaining herself. Hence, the respondent isn‟t
liable for providing any sort of maintenance.

CASE 28
IN THE CASE OF SHRI AMARANTH, M.M, TIZ HAZARI COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE ...COMPLAINANT
V.
MOHAN SINGH RAWAT ...ACCUSED
SUBJECT: COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 379 FOR THE THEFT OF

MOTORCYCLE
BRIEF FACTS
A complaint was filed against the Accused by the Complainant, alleging theft of a motorcycle
on 6 October 2017. The Accused was alleged to have co mmitted the offence of theft against
th
his neighbour. As neighbours, both the parties didn‟t share a healthy and a peaceful relation
with each other. The Accused had said to have borrowed his neighbour‟s motorcycle on 5 th
October 2015. Motorcycle was agreed to be lent to the Accused in good faith. However, the
Accused took the motorcycle and didn‟t return it. The Accused was tried to be contacted but
he switched off his mobile phone and couldn‟t be contacted. After all this, an F.I.R was
lodged regarding the issue. When the Accused was presented in the court, in his defence he
stated that he got into an accident because of which his mobile phone got damaged and
therefore, he couldn‟t be contacted.
OBSERVATION
Observation made was, two witnesses were produced, M/W 1 and M/W 2, cross questioning
were done Adv J.K Shah. Thereafter, the judge questioned the Accused about other alleged
blames which were imposed on him. The Accused refused them and denied them. The
Complainant agreed to negotiate.
NEX T DATE OF HEARI NG: 21 April 2020

st
CASE 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANTICIPATORY BAIL, APPLICATION NO. OF 2015.
IN THE MATTER OF
ROHIT SINGH …PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF DELHI …RESPONDENT
SUBJECT: APPLICATION U/S 438 R/W 482 Cr.P.C FOR THE GRANT OF BAIL TO
THE PETITIONER.
BRIEF FACTS
FIR was filed U/S 498A, 406, 34 of IPC in P.S New Ashok Nagar. The complainant
demanded for money, television, wardrobe, etc, along with all her jewellery. Apprehending
the danger of being arrested, the petitioner had filed the application for seeking anticipatory
bail as he stated that he had no possession of the jewellery. The application submitted by the
petitioner was disposed of by Shri Sanjay Garg, learned ASJ- 01 K.K.D Courts, Delhi. The
petitioner would be informed 5 days prior to his arrest. The petitioner attended all the
investigation sessions along with all counselling sessions. But due to delayed date of receipt
of notice, petitioner missed an important session of investigation. The Investigating officer
issued a 5 days‟ notice regarding the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a second
application seeking anticipatory bail which was listed before Shri B.S Chumbak, Ld V.J.E
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, and was dismissed.
OBSERVATION
Petitioner has joined the investigation and has always cooperated with the investigating
officer. He has not avoided the investigation and also, he agrees to the fact that he would
further cooperate in future for the investigation to follow. Therefore, no useful purpose would
be served by arresting the petitioner and also there is no requirement of the judicial
interrogation of the petitioner. Anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner. He is an
employee of Accenture Pvt. Ltd in Mumbai. He is a software engineer and an arrest would
hamper his career on the professional front.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING:5th April 2020

CASE 30
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SAKET DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
BONMART INTERNATIONAL LTD. ....................................................... PETITIONER
V.
PRIKNIT RETAILER LTD. ........................................................................RESPONDENT
SUBJECT: DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE

BRIEF FACTS
Bonmartinernational Ltd. is a clothing company which manufactures and supplies its
products to other retailers in the market. In this case, Bonmart International supplied goods to
Priknit Retailers Ltd. Priknit Retailers advanced a cheque towards Bonmart I nternational Ltd.
The cheque so advanced was dishonoured, reason stated was insufficient funds. Under the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 it is stated as an offence under Section 138. A complaint
was filed. The case was presented in Saket District Court. The Accused in its defence
challenged the jurisdiction of the Saket District Court in the High Court as the accused
company was situated in Ludhiana.
High Court ordered status quo in the case until the decision is made on the territorial
jurisdiction. The case, then, filed before the High Court was transferred to the Supreme
Court. Dashrath Case Judgement was passed, according to which the case should be
presented in the court which holds the local jurisdiction where the cheque was first
dishonoured. The above judgment stated is similar to the ongoing case, as the point of
conflict is regarding the jurisdiction of the court in which the case should be presented.
OBSERVATION
The territorial jurisdiction for the cases of “dishonour of cheque” will be tried in court within
the local jurisdiction. Subsequent to the judgement, the Negotiable Instrument Act
(amendment) 2015, has been passed by the parliament, which stated that offence under
section 138 shall be inquired and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the bank
branch of the payee is situated.

CASE 31
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.199/2012
IN THE MATTER OF
OM PRAKASH DHANIA
S/O LATE SHRI HARI SINGH
R/O QTR. NO.206/11, TYPE-IV (SPECIAL)
SECTOR 1, PUSHP VIHAR,
NEW DELHI 110017 ...COMPALINANAT
V.
M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS PVT. LTD ...RESPONDENT
SUBJECT: COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 1986
BRIEF FACTS
The complainant booked a plot of 100 sq. yd with M/S. Arun Dev Builders Pvt. Ltd (ADBL)
in 2008. The plot was subsequently converted into 212 sq. yd. The complainant diligently
paid the instalments, time to time, from 15.08.2008 to 23.12.2010. Despite making the
payment regularly and on time, without any defaults, the complainant was not given the
possession of his house (whereas, according to the contract the possession of the house was to
be delivered within 18 months). Hence, consumer complaint No.199/2012 was filed, which is
listed for arguments on 27.9.2018.
In the meanwhile, a Company Petition was filed in Delhi High Court for winding up of
ADBL. Pursuant to this petition, ADBL paid back the Rs.7,24,000/- (principal amount paid
by the complainant and interest at the agreed and contracted rate of 9%) on 19.12.2015.
However, the issue of award of cost of litigation, damages, etc. qua the consumer complaint
No.199/2012 needs to be adjudicated upon by the Consumer Forum.
OBSERVATION
The complainant, who was promised the possession of a house by ADBL, was not provided
with the same even after the payment of all the instalments. The complainant got his principle
amount along with interest back. However, the complainant requests to the Consumer Forum
to award him the amount of litigation cost, damages, etc. The respondent is liable to pay cost
of litigation (Rs.1,00,000/-) and damages of Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of expected
appreciation of the property which would have been earned on successful completion of the
project. A trend setting judgment needs to be passed against the Respondent by awarding
higher rate of interest, say, @ 24% or 18%. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act,
1986 is in addition AND not in derogation to the remedy provided under Companies Act,
1956. Hence, the issue of awarding cost of litigation and damages can be decided. Matter was
listed for mediation in Delhi High Court.

CASE 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MS. VINEETA GOYAL, ADJ, DELHI
C.S [O.S] NO. 2316 OF 2013
IN THE MATTER OF
UMANG RESOURCES
...PLAINTIFF
V.
INDIAN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY AND ORS ...DEFENDANT
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND DAMAGES OF RS. 25 LAC
BRIEF FACTS
The Umang Resources (plaintiff) is an advertising agency. Indian newspaper society (D1) is
an NPO. Indian newspaper society was incorporated by coming together of different
publication houses. One of the key functions to be performed by the D1 is to provide
assistance to its member publication in regard to monitoring the recovery of their due from
other advertising agencies. D2-D46 is members of D1 Society. D2-D46 was engaged in the
business of radio, television, newspaper, magazines, publication in digital media and
publishing advertisements. D47 is an individual who claims to be engaged in the business of
advertisement. D1 provides accreditation to advertising agencies and in return benifits like
credit facilities from the publication houses who are member of D1 on certain terms and
conditions like furnishing, bank guarantee to secure the payment. Plaintiff issues the R.O to
publish the advertisement of the clients of D1. The payment was to be made within 60 days
of the services provided. Business carried out between the period of 2001-2012 was estimated
to be about Rs. 39,47,15,158. Average monthly release from Plaintiff to D1 for 3 years was
Rs. 3 lac per month. D47 approached the Plaintiff regarding the business but no deal was
formalised. D47 without the consent of plaintiff started issuing forged R.Os for his own
benefit. D47 was warned by the plaintiff to stop issuing forged R.Os. R.Os wor th 6 Cr was
issues by the D47. D47 advanced a cheque of Rs. 1 Cr 80 lac towards the plaintiff but it was
dishonoured. D2-D46 was made aware about the forged R.Os by D1 but due to negligence on
the part of D2-D46, they honoured the forged R.Os. D1 cancelled the accreditation of the
plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a complained against D1-D47.
OBSERVATION
D47 had malafide intentions. D47 used plaintiff‟s name for his own benefit and forged R.Os.
Due to negligence on the part of D2-D46, they honoured the forged R.Os. D2-D47 was
already warned by the plaintiff about the R.Os. None of the advertisements were published as
the plaintiff didn‟t receive any payment.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 15th May 2020

CASE 33
BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL/ REGIONAL
DIRECTOR NEW DELHI BENCH / NORTHERN REGION, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
Hi-BRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
807, NEW DELHI HOUSE,
BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110001 ...PETITIONER NO.1
MR. JEAN PHILIPPE JACQUES GEORGES LABORDE, DIRECTOR

S/O MR. JEAN JACQUES LABORDE
R/O A-26 WEST END, NEW DELHI-110021 ...PETITIONER NO.2
MR. PABLO ALBENDEA SOLIS, DIRECTOR

R/O C.BOGOTA, 21 P01 DR SEVILLA, SPAIN …PETITIONER NO.3
MS. RAJI SACHIN KUMAR, COMPANY SECRETARY

R/O B-33, F-3, RAMPRASTHA, GHAZIABAD,
UTTAR PRADESH- 20101 ...PETITIONER NO. 4
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 441 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013

(FOR THE OFFENCE COMMITTED UNDER SECTION 166 OF THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956)
BRIEF FACTS
The Company is in accordance with the Act. The Company needed to comply with the
provisions of Section 96 and 137(2) of Companies Act, 2013. Section 96 provide that “every
company other than One Person company, every year, shall hold in addition to any other
meeting, a general meeting as its annual general meeting and shall specify the meeting as
such in the notices calling it, and not more than fifteen months shall elapse between the date
of one annual general meeting of a company and that of the next. Provided that in case of the
first annual general meeting, it shall be held within a period of nine months from the date of
closing of the first financial year of the company and in any other case, within a period of six
months, from the date of closing of the financial year.”Further Section 137 (2) provides that
“Where the annual general meeting of a company for any year has not been held, the
financial statements along with the documents required to be attached under sub-section (1),
duly signed along with the statement of facts and reasons for not holding the annual general
meeting shall be filed with the Registrar within thirty days of the last date before which the
annual general meeting should have been held and in such manner, with such fees or
additional fees as may be prescribed within the time specified, under section 403”. In the
context of the same provision the Company ought to have held its First Annual General
Meeting(s), in respect of the financial year(s) ending on 31st day of March, 2014, [hereinafter
referred to as „financial year‟], on or before 31 st day of December, 2014, in terms of section
96 read with section 129 of the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). In
this connection, the Company hereby submit that the Company has duly convened, conducted
and held its First Annual General Meeting for the financial year(s) ending on 31st March,
2014 respectively on 16 th October, 2014, and accordingly notices and Annual Reports in
respect of years has been filed with the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana
on 29th November, 2014 and 03 rd December, 2014, respectively, of respective year from the
date of Annual general meeting in accordance with the provisions of section 96 and 137 of
the Companies Act, 2013. The copies of the notice of Annual General Meeting along with
Annual Reports ROC‟s receipts thereof for the financial year(s) ending 31st March 2014 is
placed at Annexure -A-3. That the Petitioners hereby submits that when they filed an
application for extension of AGM to the office of the Registrar of Companies for the
financial year ending 31st March, 2015, they gained knowledge for non compliance of
provision of Section 166 of the Companies Act, 1956 and they direct for furnishing of order
of Compounding of offence by providing an reference of General Circular 08/2014 dated
04.04.2014 with regard to “Commencement of provision of the Companies Act, 2013 with
regard to maintenance of books of accounts and preparations/adoption/filing of financial
statements, auditor‟s report, Board‟s report and attachments to such statements and reports-
applicability with regard to relevant financial year.” As per the aforesaid circular, the
Petitioners have to conduct its first AGM within the period of 18 months from the date of its
incorporation. A copy of the General Circular No. 08/2014 dated 04.04.2014 is placed at
Annexure -A-4. 4. That the Petitioners submits that the Company fails to comply with the
provisions of Section 166 of the Companies Act, 1956, as non- aware of General Circular No.
08/2014 dated 04.04.2014. Thus the Company failed to conduct and do respective filling in
respect of the First Annual General Meeting. That the Petitioners therefore, submit that they
have committed default of non–holding of Annual General Meeting, but as mentioned above,
have committed the default for the above reason. That the Petitioners now admit their default
in holding annual general meeting as per the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 for the
above said financial year 2013-2014, within the prescribed time limit and hereby submits the
petition for grant of relief from the prosecution of the Company and its Directors on the
ground mentioned above. That the Annual Reports the above said financial year has already
been filed with the SRN No Q50380773 to the office of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of
Delhi and Haryana.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 12th May 2020

CASE 34
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION © NO. 26786 OF 2015.
IN THE MATTER OF
JAYANT VASENTRAO …PETITIONER
V.
ANOOP BOBDE & ORS …RESPONDENT
SUBJECT: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

BRIEF FACTS
R1 was appointed in the post of P.E teacher by R2 management in the school run by it in
district Yavatamal, Maharashtra. R1 claimed to be approved for 2 whereas R2 stated that R1
was appointed till the end of an academic session 1998-1999. R2 issued an advertisement for
the vacancy of P.E teacher. Petitioner applied for the same and was appointed. Petitioner
worked there for 16 years. R1 filed an appeal under section 9 of the Maharashtra employees
of private schools, regulation act, 1977, claiming to have been orally terminated which is
illegal because he was appointed for 2 consecutive years. The Tribunal found the claim of
respondent 1 unsustainable. R1 appealed in the school tribunal which was prayed for
dismissal of the petitioner along with R2 and R3. The Tribunal passed its judgment stating
service termination of R1was illegal. Thus, R1 is entitled to get six months full salary at the
current rate within 60 days. R1 filed a belated writ petitio n before the High Court challenging
the judgment and order of the school tribunal. High Court erroneously allowed the writ
petition, modifying the order of the school tribunal by directing reinstatement of R1 in
service with 30% back wages. High Court has failed to appreciate the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in many cases, that in such circumstances, order of compensation has to be
preferred over grant of reinstatement. Hence, this special leave petition.
NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 30th March 2020
CASE 35
IN THE COURT OF LD. M.M. SATVIR SINGH LAMBA, PATIALA HOUSE

COURT, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
PRINCE I T SOLUTIONS ...COMPLAINANT
V.
FORCE SYSTEMS ...RESPONDENT
SUBJECT: DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE UNDER SECTION 138, NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENTS, ACT 1881
BRIEF FACTS
Prince IT Solutions i.e. the Complainant had filed a case against FMIT Systems i.e
Respondent for the dishonour of cheque, under section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. The council for the complaint appeared before Ld. M.M Satvir Singh Lamba and
argued for the summons sent against the company. The directors of the Accused Company
also appeared before the court in this matter. However, Ld. M.M demanded for the Form 32
to be submitted before the court. The above mentioned form was asked to be submitted for
the verification of the directors of the company.
OBSERVATION
The observation drawn from the above case is that, the court of law ordered for the
submission of form 32, it was for the verification of the directors of the company. The cheque
advanced towards Prince IT Solutions was dishonoured, reason stated, insufficient funds. A
complaint was filed for the same. The parties to the case appeared before the court of law.
However, the Respondent, in its defence, stated that the claim made by the Complainant is a
false claim.
NEX T DATE OF HEARI NG: 22 May 2020

nd
1. RESEARCH TOPIC: -
 DISCHARGE OF ONUS U/S 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT.

 THAT THE INVESTED MONEY/ INCREASED SHARE CAPITAL CANNOT
BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY.
DESCRIPTION
Commissioner of Income-Tax V Steller Investments Limited. (1991) 192 ITR 287(Delhi)
Held that any increased capital is not assessable in the hands of the company. The relevant
observations of the Learned Judges are as follows: -
"It is evident that even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital were
not genuine, nevertheless, under no circumstances, can the amount of share capital be
regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee. It may be that there are some bogus
shareholders in whose name‟s shares had been issued and the money may have been provided
by some other persons. If the assessment of the persons who are alleged to have really
advanced the money is sought to be reopened, that would have made some sense, but we fail
to understand as to how this amount of increased share capital can be assessed in the hands of
the company itself."
WHEREVER THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS RECEIVED THROUGH

NORMAL BANKING CHANNELS AND SHARE WERE ACTUALLY ALLOTTED
TO THE SHARE APPLICANT AND FULL PARTICULARS OF THE INVESTOR
DULY PROVIDED, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME
TAX ACT.
DESCRIPTION
CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Limited and Others (2012) 206 Taxman 254 (Delhi)
Para 38 to 40:
"38. Even in that instant case, it is projected by the Revenue that the Directorate of Income
Tax (Investigation) had purportedly found such a racket of floating bogus companies with
sole purpose of landing entries. But, it is unfortunate that all this exercise is going in vain as
few more steps which should have been taken by the Revenue in order to find out causal
connection between the cash deposited in the bank accounts of the applicant banks and the
assessee were not taken. It is necessary to link the assessee with the source when that link is
missing, it is difficult to fasten the assessee with such a liability.
39. We may repeat what is often said, that a delicate balance has to be maintained while
walking on the tight rope of sections 68 and 69 of the Act. On the one hand, no doubt, such
kind of dubious practices are rampant, on the other hand, merely because there is an
acknowledgement of such practices would not mean that in any of such cases coming before
the Court, the Court has to presume that the assessee in questions as indulged in that practice.
To make the assessee responsible, there has to be proper evidence. It is equally important that
an innocent person cannot be fastened with liability without cogent evidence. One has to see
the matter from the point of view of such companies (like the assessee herein) who invite the
share application money from different sources or even public at large. It would be asking for
a moon if such companies are asked to find out from each and every share
applicant/subscribers to first satisfy the assessee companies about the source of their funds
before investing. It is for this reason the balance is struck by catena of judgments in laying
down that the Department is not remediless and is free to proceed to reopen the individual
assessment of such alleged bogus shareholders in accordance with the law. That was
precisely the observation of the Supreme Court in Lovely Export (supra) which holds the
fields and is binding.
40. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that once adequate evidence/material is given, as
stated by us above, which would prima facie discharge the burden of the assessee in proving
the identity of shareholders, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the
shareholders, thereafter in case such evidence is to be discarded or it is proved that it has
'created" evidence, the Revenue is supposed to make thorough probe of the nature indicated
above before it could nail the assessee and fasten the assessee with such a liability under
Sections 68 and 69 of the Act.
3. RESEARCH TOPIC:
SOURCE OF SOURCE WAS INTRODUCED IN SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME
TAX ACT, 1961 W.E.F 01.04.2013 I.E. AY 2013-2014
iv. ONUS ON THE APPELLANT COMPANY TO PROVE THE "SOURCE OF
SOURCE OF FUNDS" WAS NOT MANDATE OF LAW IN THE YEAR
UNDER APPEAL.
v. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE FOR
THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL DID NOT CAST ON ONUS UPON AN
ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT.
vi. THE CORRESPONDING AMENDMENT TO SECTION 68 IS APPLICABLE
I.E. 01-04-2013 I.E. A/Y 2013-14 AND ONWARDS AS SPECIFICALLY
MANDATED BY LAW.
vii. NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BASED ON AN
ATTEMPT TO LOOK INTO THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT
CAN BE SUSTAINED
DESCRIPTION
MOD Creations Put Ltd vs Income Tax Officer (2013) 354 ITR 282 (Delhi)
"Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only sets up a presumption against the assessee
whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. The
presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption missed, the initial burden is on the
assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee
establishes the authenticity of transactions as executed between the assessee and its
creditors. It is no part of the assessee's burden to prove either the genuineness of the
transactions executed between the creditors and the sub-creditors nor is it the burden of
the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the sub-creditors.
PART B
RESEARCH PROJECT
Money Launde ring under Money Laundering Act, 2002
Objective: The objective of doing this research work is to learn and understand Section 3 of
the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002
Regular Internship work review- In my regular internship I studied and attended cases
related to Section 3 of the Prevention of the Money Laundering Act, 2002, how the court
deals with such matter. Also, I did lot of discussion regarding same section with my
associates as to gain more knowledge about the same section and also attend the meetings of
clients with my associates regarding their matter.
Main Content-
a. Introduction
Money Laundering is a method of legitimizing the illegally earned money so as to avoid being
caught while carrying on illegal activities and avoid taxes. It involves three stages. They are:
1. Placement- the person places a sum of money in the bank in the form of cash. This is the
riskiest stage as banks are required to report high value transactions. The money is usually broken
in smaller amounts and then placed in banks.
2. Layering- at this stage the money is transferred into various overseas anonymous bank
accounts in countries where banks have secrecy codes. This money is then invested in purchase
of valuable things like diamonds, ship, etc.
3. Integration- the illegal money appears legal and can be used by the launderer. Its very difficult
to catch hold of money laundering at this stage. The investment done in layering stage can now
be sold and the money having received appears to have been acquired by legal means.
In India the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 came into force on 1st July 2005. Section
3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 says â€œWhosoever directly or indirectly
attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property
shall be guilty of offence of money launderingâ€• . It was amended in 2009. The Act provides for
rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than 3 years and fine. The banks are required to keep
a record of all the transactions for 10 years and furnish the information to the director appointed
by centre within prescribed time. Under Section 56 of the Act the Centre can enter into an
agreement with foreign county for exchange of information to prevent such act under the
provisions of this act or corresponding law in force in that country.
b. Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the PMLA,2002

In the case of B. Rama Raju v. UOI & Ors. ([2011]164CompCas149(AP)) constitutional
validity of Section 2(1)(u),5,8 and 23 were challenged. The court looked into the object of the act.
The property in possession of any person other than the one who has been charged with for
committing the offence can also be attached and confiscated. With respect to the retrospective
penalization the court held that the Parliament has the power to allow confiscation of property
acquired by illegal means prior to the enactment of this act. With respect to the presumption
enjoined by section 23 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA,2002) the court
held that Section 23 enjoins a rule of evidence and rebuttable presumption considered essential
and integral to effectuation of purposes of Act in legislative wisdom. Its a rebuttable and an
irrebuttable presumption. Hence validity of the provisions was upheld.
c. Who can appoint Special Public Prosecutor?

Section 46 of the act clearly says that a Central Government can appoint special public prosecutor
for any case or group of cases. In the case of Center for PIL & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
(2011(3)GLT(SC)17, 2011(4)SCALE583) which is 2G spectrum case the court had to deal with
the issue of appointment of special public prosecutor to conduct proceedings on behalf of CBI(
Central Bureau of Investigation ) and ED( Enforceme nt Directorate). The Honourable Supreme
Court while dealing with the matter of appointment of Special Public Prosecutor held that Special
Public Prosecutor cannot be treated as a Government employee and maybe a lawyer on
government panel but is independent of government control. The provision of Section 46 of
PMLA,2002 has to be read with Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure,1973. Further it was also
said that any objection with respect to the appointment of Special Public Prosecutor is to be dealt
with by the Supreme Court.
d. Who can investigate?

As per section 44 of PMLA, 2002 the investigation under the PML Act is within the jurisdiction
and domain of the Enforcement Directorate. If the matter requires a systematic, scientific and
analysed investigation by an expert investigating agency, like the Central Bureau of Investigation
the Central Government should exercise the powers under Section 45(1A) of the PMLA, 2002 for
transferring investigation from the Enforcement Directorate to the CBI. This was said by
Supreme Court in the case of Binod Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors .
((2011)3SCC(Cri)217)
The problem with money laundering is that it involves high class people. The agencies are
required to be attentive and catch hold of offenders at placement stage. Though under sec. 24
accused has the burden to prove that the property is untainted it is manageable to prove innocence
at integration stage but arduous at placement stage. In most of the cases person is caught at the
time of tax assessment. By this time the whole process of laundering gets completed and becomes
very laborious to prove the offence. The act was passed almost a decade ago but still there have
been very few convictions with respect to such illegal activity which is acting like a termite in our
economy.
The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018
Objective: The objective of doing this research work is to learn and understand the
implications of The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018 and what are the power granted
under it
Regular Internship work review- In my regular internship I studied The Fugitive Economic
Offenders Bill, 2018, how the court deals with such matter. Also, I did lot of discussion
regarding same section with my associates as to gain more knowledge about the same
section.
Main Content-
a. Introduction
There had been several instances of economic offenders fleeing the Jurisdiction of Indian courts
anticipating the commencement of criminal proceedings or sometimes during the pendency of
such proceedings. The absence of such offenders from Indian courts had several deleterious
consequences. such as, it obstructed investigation in criminal cases. it wasted precious time of
courts and it undermined the rule of law in lndia. Further, most of such cases of economic
offences involved nonâ€”repayment of bank loans thereby worsening the financial health of the
banking sector in India, it was felt that the existing civil and criminal provisions in law were
inadequate to deal with the severity of the problem.
ln order to address the said problem and lay down measures to deter economic offenders from
evading the process of Indian law by remaining outside theiurisdiction of lndian courts, the
Government proposed to enact a legislation, namely, the Fugitive Economic offender is Bill,
2018 to ensure that fugitive economic offenders return to India to face the action in accordance
with law.
b. Broad outline of legislative proposals Bill:

The definition of the fugitive economic offender has been provided to mean as an individual who
has committed a scheduled offence or offences involving an amount of one hundred crore rupees
or more and has absconded from India or refused to come back to India to avoid or face criminal
prosecution in India.
Provision has been made for attachment of the property of a fugitive economic offender and
proceeds of crime.
The powers of Director relating to survey. search and seizure and search of persons have been
provided for.
Provision has also been made for confiscation of the properly of a fugitive economic offender and
proceeds of crime.
It has been provided for disentitlement of the fugitive economic offender from putting toward or
defending any civil claim.
There is provision for appointment of an Administrator for the purposes of the proposed
legislation.
c. Enumeration of main provisions of the Bill:
Chapter 11 of the Bill pertains to declaration of fugitive economic: offenders and confiscation
of property. Detailed provisions have been made in regard to application for declaration of
fugitive economic offender and procedure therefore; attachment of property; powers of Director
and other officers; power of survey and search and seizure and search of persons. Provisions have
also been made for service of notice. procedure for hearing application. declaration of fugitive
economic offender. supplementary application; power to disallow civil claims and management
of properties confiscated under the legislation.
In Chapter 111 of the legislation, provisions have been made in regard to rules of evidence;
appeal: bar of jurisdiction. protection of action taken in good faith: power of the Central
Government to amend schedule to the legislation; power to make rules; laying of rules before
Parliament etc.
d. Debate
There were detailed deliberations on the clauses o the Bill in both Houses of Parliament. The
Minister in charge of the Bill in his reply to the debates in Parliament inter alia stated as follows:
The Minister at the outset thanked all the Members for expressing their concerns that stringent
actions should be taken in this matter and all these fugitive offenders should be brought back to
the country and their properties be confiscated. it should also be ensured that the money involved
in such offences should be brought back to the exchequer of the country at the earliest. It is very
natural that certain stringent law is required to carry out all these things.
The Minister further stated the objective behind bringing in the Bill was that the first of all action
should be taken against big offenders without clogging the courts and tribunals. The
Governments view was that first of all the persons perpetrating the offence involving the value of
Rs. 100 crore and more should be brought to book. That would serve as a deterrent. This would
ensure that no one will run away and those who have already run away perhaps will come back
after having seen the properties being confiscated and will face the consequences of the law.
Referring to questions raised by some Members about the ceiling of Rs. 100 crores, the Minister
clarified that the intention of the Government was very clear. that big offenders should be caught
first and action be taken against the m as soon as possible. An effort was being made under the
new system to ensure that no big offenders go scot-free. All such have been brought in the ambit
of this law in order to put them on fast track trial. In regard to questions raised by Members about
the provision of search and seizure, the Minister stated this provision has been taken from the
Money Laundering Act, 2002. The provision of two or more than two witnesses had been made
for search and seizure in the Section 9(e) of the Bill. As far as the disposal of the confiscated
properties was concerned, the Minister clarified that Section 5(3) especially provides for the
manners in which the properties confiscated or attached will be disposed of. An administrator
would be appointed for this purpose which will manage the property under the directions of the
court. A special court would be constituted to focus on big cases.
The Minister also stated that by going through the clause 3 of the Bill it could be understood how
the Government is going to clamp down on the offenders by bringing the prospective law. The
clause 3 of the Bill clearly provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply to any individual
who is or becomes a fugitive offender. As regards the question raised as to how the order of
Indian court will be effective on the foreign land, the Minister stated that Government of India
signs treaties with foreign Governments and through these treaties they would execute such
orders. India had already signed such treaties with 39 countries and would continue to sign such
treaties with other countries. At the same time. the Minister assured the Members that there will
be no denial to human rights as there is unshakable faith in courts and tribunals of the country.
The Bill was passed by Lok Sabha on 9 July 2018 and by Rajya Sabha on 25 July 2018. The Bill
as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President of India on 31 July
2018.
e. Major Features
A broad framework of the said Act is laid out here under:

A "fugitive economic offender" means any individual against whom a warrant for arrest in
relation to a Scheduled Offence has been issued by any Court in India, who-
(i) has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution; or
(ii) being abroad, refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution;
"Scheduled Offence" under the Act is basically a list of existing offences (provided the total value
involved is more that Rs. 100 Crores) under various statutes such as Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988,
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Companies Act, 2013, Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 etc.
The said Act applies to any individual who is or becomes a fugitive economic offender on or after
21st day of April 2018.
An application to declare an individual as a 'fugitive economic offender' can be made under S.4
by a Director or a Deputy Director (as defined under the PMLA). Under S.5 of the said Act
subject to receipt of the Special Court's permission, the Director or the Deputy Director may
proceed with attachment of properties; whether the property is proceeds of crime or any other
property (including any benami property) which is owned by a fugitive economic offender. The
Special Court here means the Sessions Court designated as a Special Court under sub-section (1)
of section 43 of the PMLA.
In addition to the above, S.5(2) by way of a non-obstante clause also provides for attachment of
properties prior to any application being made for declaration of a fugitive economic offender.
The attachment of any property under this section shall continue for a period of 180 days from the
date of order of attachment or such other period as may be extended by the Special Court.
However, in such a case, the application under S.4 has to be made within 30 (Thirty) days from
the date of such provisional attachment.
Under S. 12, the Special Court upon being satisfied and for reasons to be recorded in writing may
declare an individual as a fugitive economic offender. Upon this declaration, (i) properties which
are proceeds of a crime whether owned by the offender or not; and (ii) any other properties
(including personal and benami properties) owned by the offender; shall stand confiscated to the
Central Government.
A unique provision of the said Act is S.14 which bars a fugitive economic offender from
initiating/continuing/defending any civil claims. The section goes a step further and even
disallows a limited liability partnership or a company from the same if its promoter or key
managerial personnel or major shareholder or anyone who holds a controlling interest has been
declared a fugitive economic offender.
As far as burden of proof is concerned, it shall be the Director (as defined under the PMLA) or
the person authorized by the Director who has to prove that an individual is a fugitive economic
offender. However, if it is a case of any person claiming bona fide interest, then the burden is on
the said person to prove his innocent stake in the property and validity of his claim.
The Act extends to the whole of India and shall have effect, notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law and further, it shall be in addition to and not in
derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
f. Observation
1. The first thing that comes to mind is that whether the said Act was absolutely essential or is it a
case of a futile legislative action taken in haste to calm the agitated common man in light of the
recent high value monetary scams. Just like PMLA, the sa id Act makes a direct reference to
various other statutes and includes scheduled offences as per those statutes but interestingly
covers a lot less offences as compared to PMLA. The reasoning behind this narrow approach may
be due to the fact that unlike PMLA, wherein confiscation and disposal of properties actually
takes place only after conclusion of proceedings, the said Act provides for confiscation and
subsequent disposal of properties (whether situated in India or abroad) on the mere declaration of
an individual as a 'fugitive economic offender' if the individual fails to return to Indian
jurisdiction. Such a draconian section is bound to have a strong deterrent effect on the accused
and will surely force him to surrender or at least appear (either himself or through an appointed
attorney) before the appropriate authorities in India and that's what seems to be the legislative
intent here.
2. The seemingly arbitrary section S.5(2) is bound to receive some criticism for not being in
consonance with a basic principle of justice i.e. 'innocent until proven guilty'. The section is a
major enabling provision for the Enforcement Directorate, the law enforcement agency in such
matters or any other appropriate authority as it gives them ample power to search, seize and
attach properties even without commencement of any proceedings. Further, as pointed out above
the authorities may even dispose off the properties after a period of 90 (Ninety) days from the
date of declaration of the fugitive economic offender.
This pre-conviction confiscation is not an entirely new concept. It has been laid down in United
Nations Convention against Corruption ("UNCC") which India ratified in 2011. Article 54 (1)(c)
of the UNCC enables signatory countries to consider taking such measures as may be necessary
to allow confiscation of such property without a criminal conviction in cases in which the
offender cannot be prosecuted by reason of death or absence. The said Act adopts the same
concept.
3. In addition to the above, it is also important to highlight the domestic scenario and the approach
taken by our courts. Such stringent provisions exist in various other statutes as well, such as the
provision of forfeiture of properties under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators
(Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (which was constitutionally upheld by the Supreme Court
in Attorney General for India vs Amratlal Prajivandas 3); provision of freezing of assets of a
company by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office under the Companies Act, 2013 and
provisions of provisional attachment under the Income Tax Act 1961 among others.
4. S.5(2) of the said Act which provides for attachment of properties on mere suspicion prior to
declaration of fugitive economic offender and/or initiation of any proceedings may possibly be
challenged on grounds of its constitutionality for being against basic doctrines of justice. We are
of the opinion that although potential misuse or exploitation of this provision by the authorities is
a valid concern, the intent of the legislature of compelling absconders to surrender has to be kept
in mind too. Further, in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union of India 4 and Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and
Ors. v. Union of India 5 the Supreme Court has held that the mere possibility of abuse of power is
not a ground to strike down the provision on the basis that it is substantively unreasonable or
ultra vires or unconstitutional. In any unfair cases, the court by upholding the provision of law,
may still set aside the action/order/decision and grant appropriate relief to the person aggrieved.
The most relevant judgment herein would be J.Sekar and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.6 The
Delhi High Court in January 2018 upheld the constitutionality of second proviso of S.5(1) of
PMLA. The said non-obstante proviso is akin to S.5(2) of the said Act. It enables the competent
authority under PMLA to forthwith provisionally attach properties of an accused on mere
suspicion and without forwarding any report to the magistrate under Code of Civil Procedure,
1973. However, the case is currently pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Considering
the similar nature of these provisions, the final outcome of the case might have a major impact on
the said Act.
5. S.14 which disallows civil proceedings is a sweeping section which also bars a limited liability
partnership or a company with which a fugitive economic offender might be related to from
initiating or defending any civil cases. This is an unnecessarily wide and strict provision
especially since the said Act does not actually adjudicate upon the innocence or guilt of a person
but merely declares the person to be a fugitive economic offender. Chances are fairly high that
the constitutionality of this provision will be deliberated upon in the near future. In fact, a
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held 'access to justice' as a facet of
right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and also a part of right to equality
under Article 14 of the Constitution in Anita Kushwaha vs Pushap Sudan 7.
6. Although the said Act provides for a period of 90 days from the date of order of declaration
before disposing off confiscated properties, it is surprisingly silent on any timeline within which
the Special Court should decide on an application under the said Act. This may potentially delay
the proceedings especially in a case where the alleged offe nder enters an appearance through a
counsel. While an alleged offender should not be denied the right to defend himself, absence of
any fixed timeline gives just too much leeway to the accused to delay or stall proceedings without
actually submitting himself to Indian authorities.
7. The prescribed threshold of Rs. 100 Crores for offences may let many wrongdoers evade the
provisions of the said Act. Alongside the monetary value, the nature of offence too should be
considered for the purposes of the Act.
8. Although the said Act covers foreign properties and provides for a letter of request to be made to
foreign states, the reality remains that India has a poor track record when it comes to extradition.
Till April 05, 2018, more that 150 extradition requests were pending with various foreign
countries.8 Thus, due importance needs to be given to strengthening of international relations,
simplifying of extradition procedures and culmination of more robust extradition
arrangements/treaties.
9. From a bare reading of the said Act, it appears that only a Director or an officer not below the
rank of a Deputy Director can apply under S.4 for declaration of an individual as a fugitive. There
is no scope for any other person to bring forth an application directly or even indirectly. The
reason behind such omission is unclear.
10. S.62 of the PMLA provides for punishment of officers in case of vexatious searches by them.
Considering the similar nature of the laws, it would have been prudent to have incorporated a
similar provision under the said Act.
11. The said Act places reliance on preponderance of probabilities as the standard of proof to be used
by the Special Court. Although, this is a lower parameter as compared to the general principle of
requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt for prosecution of offences, the intention of the said Act
should be given due weightage which aims to bring the alleged offender within the I ndian
jurisdiction and not adjudicate upon and/or penalise the alleged offender.
12. Needless to say, that it remains to be seen as to how the said Act would work in tandem with the
existing statutes especially in relation to attachment of properties and recovery of dues under
different statutes before different fora.
The E-Comme rce (Regulation) Bill, 2019
Objective: The objective of doing this research work is to learn and understand The E-
Commerce (Regulation) Bill, 2019
Regular Internship work review- In my regular internship I studied The E-Commerce

(Regulation) Bill, 2019, how the court deals with such matter. Also, I did lot of discussion
regarding same section with my associates as to gain more knowledge about the same
section.
Main Content-
a. Introduction
The E-Commerce (Regulation) Bill, 2019, introduced by Hon'ble Mrs.Shanta Chhetri, M.P.
(Rajya Sabha) is for protection of rights of consumers against marketing of products and
services through e-commerce and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
b. Short title, extent and commence ment.
1 This Act may be called the E-Commerce (Regulation) Act, 2019.

2 It extends to the whole of India.
3 It shall come into force on such date, as the Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, appoint.
c. Definitions.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

1 "e-commerce" means buying or selling of goods or services by digital or electronic
network;
2 "observation period" means a fixed time period given to a consumer to examine the goods
or services availed by him through e-commerce without inviting any liabilities; and
3 words and expressions, used but not defined under this Act, shall have the same meaning as
assigned to them under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
d. Right of consume r to return the product or service Purchase through e-comme rce.
1 Every consumer who buy or sell any product or opts for any service through e-commerce
shall have an observation period of fifteen days from the date of buying or selling of such
product or service.
2 The consumer shall have the right to return the product or the service to the company
offering the same within the observation period if he is not satisfied with the quality and
performance of the product or service, without giving any reason for returning the product or
refusing the service.
3 The company which has offered the products or services shall refund the full amount, if
any, charged for the same within seven working days from the date of return of product or
refusal of service by the consumer within the observation period.
Explanation.
1 For the purpose of this sub-section "full amount" includes the packaging cost, delivery cost
and the cost of returning the product.
2 Every consumer shall have the right to get a full refund of money including the delivery
charges, the cost of return or the installation charges, if the goods or services on purchase are
found to be faulty.
3 Companies to give full and clear information to consumer regarding goods and services.
4 Every company shall give full and clear information including manufacturing date, expiry
or best before date, about the goods and services being offered through e-commerce.
5 Any condition, agreement or contract whatsoever, shall not be enforceable by the company
unless it gives the required information to the consumer, prior to purchase of the goods or
services.
e. Penalty
1. Whoever contravenes the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend upto one year or with fine,
which may extend upto five lakh rupees or with both.
2. Where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any
rule, made there under is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention
wascommitted, was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of
business of the company as well as the company, shall be guilty of the contravention and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
3. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render any such person liable to
punishment, if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.
Explanation ”for the purpose of this section:”
(i) "company" means anybody corporate and include a firm or other association of
individuals; and
(ii) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
f. Powe r to re move difficulties

If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government
may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions, not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act, as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the
difficulty:
1. Provided that no such orders shall be made after the expiry of the period of three years
from the date of commencement of this Act.
2. Act not in derogation of other laws.
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions in
any other law, for the time being in force, relating to e-commerce selling.
g. Powe r to make rules
1. The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette make rules for carrying
out the purposes of this Act.
2. Every rule made under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid, as soon as may be
after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of
thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and
if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive
sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both the
Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in
such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previo usly
done under that rule.
h. Statement of Object and Reason.

India is the fastest growing market for e-commerce sector. The e-commerce has transformed
the way the business is done in India. The Indian e-commerce market is expected to grow to
US $ 200 billion by 2026 from the current US $ 39 billion. Much growth of the industry has
been triggered by increasing internet and smart phone penetration. The ongoing digital
transformation in the country is expected to increase Indiaâ€™s total internet users based to
829 million by 2021 from 604 million as of 2018.
India‟s e-commerce revenue is expected to increase to US $ 120 billion in 2020 from the
present US $ 39 billion, growing at an annual rate of 51 per cent, the highest in the world.
The Government has announced various timely initiatives namely, digital India, make in
India, Start-up India, Skill India and Innovation Fund to support the e-commerce growth
industry including increased participation of foreign players in the e-commerce field and
other policy initiatives.
The emergency of supply chain, rise in trade and development in e-commerce have led to a
new delivery system for goods and services and have provided opportunities for the
customers. Equally the person who is buying goods or services through this e-commerce
selling does not get any chance of a face to face contact with the person selling the goods and
the opportunity to feel or examine it, hence there are chances that he may fall into a false trap.
Many cases have been reported of this nature where the goods and services purchased by an
individual do not match in quality and appearance with those displayed on television,
magazines, hoarding, etc.
This unfair trade and unethical business practice, misleading advertisement, telemarketing,
direct selling and e-commerce pose new challenges to consumers rights and protection in our
country. The Bill, therefore, seeks to provide for the rights of the customer to return the
goods or services purchased through e-commerce within the observation period of fifteen
days without inviting any liabilities and imposing duties on the companies to provide full, fair
and complete information to the customer while selling goods and services through e-
commerce selling.
Memorandum Regarding Delegated Legislation

Clause 9 of the Bill empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the
purpose of the Bill. As the rules will relate to matters of details only, the delegation of
legislative power is of a normal character.
Limited Liability Partnership in India
Objective: The objective of doing this research work is to learn and understand the
difference between Partnership and Limited Liability Partnership.
Regular Internship work review- In my regular internship I studied and attended cases
related to Limited Liability Partnership, how the court deals with such matter. Also, I did lot
of discussion regarding same section with my associates as to gain more knowledge about the
same section.
Main Content-
a. Introduction
The inclination towards working together to do business and attain other commercial objectives
has a long history. Partnership and companies has been the main mechanisms to achieve these
goals. These are seen as an improvement over the sole trade business where one single individual
with his own resources, skill and effort carries on his own business. Due to the limitation of the
resources of only a single person being involved in the sole-trade business, a larger business
requiring more investment and resources than available to a sole trader, cannot be thought of in
such a form of business organization. In partnership or a body corporate, on the other hand, a
number of persons could join their resources and labors and could start a much larger business,
than could be afforded by any of these persons independently. In case of loss also the burden gets
divided.
Limited liability partnership is a partnership but as it is clear from the name itself, it has a limited
burden of liability distinct from the traditional one where the liability was not limited and all the
partners had to bear the burden in case of loss in business. An LLP have the benefits of both a
Partnership and a company. In reality, It lies somewhere between the partnership and the body
corporate. To understand it, we must first know about what is partnership and body corporate or a
company. According to the Indian Partnership Act, a Partnership is the relation between persons
who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.
Unlike an incorporated company a partnership does not have a legal personality of its own. On
the other hand a body corporate is a form of business in which the members join and pool their
resources together to do business but the basic difference between a partnership and a corporation
is that a corporation has a distinct legal personality different from its members. It also has a
perpetual succession i.e. unlike a partnership, whether its partner exist or not it will to continue to
exist.
Corporations and Partnerships have been a primary form of business structure for a long time
now. Although, the two bodies of law have much in common, historically they differed sharply
on the role of the contract and private ordering in structuring the firm. Partnership law encourages
private ordering through bargaining by providing an agreement amongst partners. In contrast,
corporate law historically has provided a mandatory framework for firm structure highly resistant
to shareholdersâ€™ attempts to define their relationships through bargaining. Proponents of
private ordering within firms prefer the freedoms of partnership law to the mandates of corporate
law, and over time they have enjoyed success in extending the bargaining model from partnership
law to corporate law. However, certain inherent limitations of both these forms of business have
made them unsuitable for certain businesses. This ultimately led to the evolution of certain hybrid
forms of business structures, limited liability partnership is one of them.
A limited liability partnership (LLP) is a hybrid corporate business vehicle that has a perpetual
succession and separate legal entity. It not only provides the benefits of limited liability but also
allows its partners the flexibility of organizing their internal structure as a general partnership. As
a hybrid business entity, the LLP combines the limited liability features of companies with the
operational flexibility of partnerships.
Genesis of the Bill

In India, the idea and requirement for legislation to provide for Limited Liability partnerships
(LLPs) has been put forward from time to time by various Committees and Expert Groups, viz.
Bhat Committee (1972), Committee to examine the adequacy of Institutional credit to SSI sector
and related aspects (Nayak Committee, 1992), Expert Committee on Small Enterprises (Abid
Hussein Committee, 1997) and Dr. S.P. Gupta Study Group on Development of Small Scale
Enterprises, 2001.
In the recent past, the need for a separate legislation for LLPs has been recommended by the
Committee on Regulation of Private Companies and Partnerships headed by Shri Naresh Chandra
(2003) and Dr. J. J. Irani Committee on new Company Law (2005).
Why L.L.P. needed?

The second Naresh Chandra Committee Report provided the idea of the introduction of LLP
which, it described, in a legal perspective, as a hybrid between a company and a partnership, but
much closer to the private company form. The main reasons as provided by the Naresh Chandra
committee were the â€œrisk factorâ€• advantage associated with such an enterprise and the
enhanced global competitive advantage an LLP vehicle will offer to Indian professionals like
lawyers, accountants, doctors, architects, and company secretaries. Firstly, LLP is looked upon,
primarily, as â€œa form of business entity which permits individual partners to be safeguarded
from joint liability created by another partnerâ€™s business decision or misconduct.â€• In an
increasingly litigious market environment, the prospect of being a member of a partnership firm
with unlimited personal liability is risky and unattractive and this is the chief reason why
partnership firms of professionals, such as accountants, have not grown in size to succe ssfully
meet the challenge posed today by the international competition. In LLP the partners have limited
liability in the same manner as in a limited company. Hence in the event of failure of business or
tortuous matters, the liability is limited to the responsible partner. Moreover there would be no
resort to attachment of personal assets of the other members, except the one who was personally
liable for the negligence.
Secondly, professionals like lawyers, accountants, doctors, architects and company secretaries are
prohibited from practicing under any incorporated form. But as Indian professionals are
increasingly transacting with or representing multi-nationals in international transactions, the
extent of the liability they could potentially be exposed to is extremely high. Hence, in order to
encourage Indian professionals to participate in the international business community without
apprehension of being subject to excessive liability, the need for having a legal structure like the
LLP is self-evident.
Therefore we can say as a conclusion that the efforts for the making of limited liability
partnership arisen from several factors, such as
increase in the numbers of litigation for professionalâ€™s negligence and the magnitude of
claims;
the risk to a partnerâ€™s private property, when the claim exceeds the sum of the property and
insurance cover of the partnership;
The expansion in the size of partnerships;
increase in specialization among partners and the coming together of different professions within
a partnership
Difference between LLP and general partnership

The first difference between an LLP and a partnership firm is that both are governed by different
Acts. LLP is governed by LLP Act and Companies Act while partnership is governed by Indian
partnership Act.
Another difference between partnership and an LLP is related to its entity. An LLP has a separate
legal entity While the partnership has not any kind of separate legal entity.
An LLP practice perpetual succession while a general partnership firm does not observe perpetual
succession. It means an LLP can still continue with its business regardless of possible partner
changes or they can hold properties in their own name because they are independent entities
separate from their individual partners while a standard partnership refers to its partners as the
firm and not independent of their partners.
Required number of minimum members is two in both the LLP and the Partnership but as far as
the maximum number is concerned, it is 20 in the case of a general partnership while no such
boundations is there in case of an LLP.
There must be a contribution from the partners as to the capital according to LLP Act in an LLP
while no such requirement is there in a partnership. However it is required in a partnership that
the stamp paper must be according to the capital to be invested.
As far as the partnerâ€™s identity is concerned, no such requirement in a partnership firm but in
a LLP the designated partner must obtain the DPIN.
In an LLP, the liability is limited according to the contribution of the partners while in general
partnership, the liability is unlimited. further the LLP can have one or more of its partners with
limited liability as opposed to a partnership wherein all partners have unlimited liability â€“ they
are liable for the actions of all other member partners.
Difference between Company and LLP

The first different between a company and an LLP is as to the capital requirements. 1 lakh in case
of a private company and 5 lakh in case of a public company is required as minimum capital to
initiate a company. While no such minimum requirement is there for establishing an LLP.
However there needed contribution as per the LLP Act.
In a company, all directors must have to obtain DIN that is directors identification number while
in case of an LLP only designated partners have to obtain the DPIN or the Designated Partners
Identification Number.
Companies are mostly preferred for doing large business while LLPs are preferred mostly by
professionals.
Listing of a company in stock market is possible while its not possible in case of an LLP.
In case of a company, audit is necessary but in LLP audit is only necessary when the turnover
exceeds 40 lakhs or the contribution of partners exceeds 25 lakhs.
In case of decision making for the day to day function of a company, the consent of shareholders
are not required but in case of an LLP the consent of partners are required.
The requirement of having a common seal is mandatory in case of company but not so in the
LLP. Its optional in the case of an LLP.
In a company, the authority to take decision to conduct business lies with the board of directors.
Any individual director or member do not have any authority. On the other hand every partner
has authority to conduct business in an LLP , unless the LLP Act provides otherwise.
Requirements of an LLP
Who can be partner in an LLP?
Any individual or body corporate may be a partner in a limited liability partnership: Provided that
an individual shall not be capable of becoming a partner of a limited liability partnership, if-
(a) he has been found to be of unsound mind by a Court of competent jurisdiction and the finding
is in force;
(b) he is an undischarged insolvent; or
(c) he has applied to be adjudicated as an insolvent and his application is pending.
Number of partners
(1) Every limited liability partnership shall have at least two partners.
(2) If at any time the number of partners of a limited liability partnership is reduced below two
and the limited liability partnership carries on business for more than six months while the
number is so reduced, the person, who is the only partner of the limited liability partnership
during the time that it so carries on business after those six months and has the knowledge of the
fact that it is carrying on business with him alone, shall be liable personally for the obligations of
the limited liability partnership incurred during that period.
(3) The requirement is that minimum two partners should be there to form an LLP but there is no
limit of maximum number of partner as is there in the case of a general partnership.
(4) In an LLP an individual or even a body corporate can be a partner.
Designated partners and the DPIN(designated partner identification number)

Every limited liability partnership shall have at least two designated partners who are individuals
and at least one of them shall be a resident in India.
Provided that in case of a limited liability partnership in which all the partners are bodies
corporate or in which one or more partners are individuals and bodies corporate, at least two
individuals who are partners of such limited liability partnership or nominees of such bodies
corporate shall act as designated partners,"resident in India" means a person who has stayed in
India for a period of not less than one hundred and eighty-two days during the immediately
preceding one year.
The designated partner(DP) must have to obtain the designated partners identification number
from the ministry of corporate affairs.
Responsibilities and liabilities on DP
- The DP has no implied authority to conduct day to day business of LLP just because of his
being a designated partner.
- It is not essential that power to conduct business should be with him.
- DP is responsible for compliances of the provisions of the LLP Act including filing of various
returns and document specified in the Act.
- He is liable to all penalties imposed on the LLP for any contravention of those provisions.
Name
The LLP must have either the acronym LLP or the words Limited Liability Partnership as the last
words of its name.
No limited liability partnership shall be registered by a name which, in the opinion of the central
Government is
Undesirable; or
Identical or too nearly resembles to that of any other partnership firm or limited liability
partnership or body corporate or a registered trade mark, or a trade mark which is the subject
matter of an application for registration of any other person under the Trade Marks Act, 1999(47
of 1999)
Salient features of LL.P.

The salient features of the act are as follows:
LL.P. can be formed by any two or more persons, associated for carrying on a lawful business, by
subscribing their names to incorporation document.
The rights and duties of LLP and its partners shall be governed by an agreement between partners
or between LLP and the partners.
The LLP will be a separate legal entity, liable of its assets, with liability of the partners being
limited to their agreed contribution in the LLP.
Every LLP shall have at least two partners and shall also have at least two individuals as
Designated Partners, of whom at least one shall be resident in India.
The LLP shall be under an obligation to maintain annual accounts reflecting true and fair view of
its state of affairs.
The provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 not applicable on LLP.
Perpetual succession, Management structure is flexible, Legal and procedural requirement are
simpler.
It provides for an organizational flexibility to the partners which is governed through the
agreement.
The partners are able to modify their working arrangement to suit their business .There is no
dependence on the statute for determining the internal working arrangement of the LLP.
One of the important advantages is the nature of an LLP, which is a unique combination of a
partnership and a body corporate which provides the opportunity of growth of both the
professional expertise and entrepreneurial initiatives in an innovative and flexible manner.
It also provides for the possibility of combination of two enterprises to build synergy between
their respective expertises.
It has an easy compliance procedure for small enterprises.
Liability of partners
The Act at the outset, besides conferring the separate legal personality, clarifies that every partner
is the agent of the LLP, but not of the other partners. the Indian LLP Act seeks to exclude the
personal liability of a partner directly or indirectly for an obligation referred to in Section 27(3)
solely by reason of being a partner of the limited liability partnership.? Section 27(3) in turn
provides that â€œan obligation of the limited liability partnership whether arising out of contract
or otherwise, is solely the obligation of the LLPâ€• .? Nothing in the Act qualifies Section 27(3)
as a reference solely to non-business? liabilities. This gives an Indian LLP , the same status as a
company? within the meaning of Section 3 of the Companies Act so far the extent of personal
liability of its partners is concerned. Whatever the nature of acts giving rise to the obligation in
question, a partner (other than the partner who committed a wrongful act) of an LLP cannot be
made personally liable. The extent of liability of partners under the LLP Act 2008 can therefore
said to be following:
# The Partners are in an LLP are agents of the LLP itself but not of other partners.
# The liability of the partners in an LLP is a limited one and it is to be met out, in case of a loss,
of the property of the Limited Liability Partnership and not of their individual properties.
# However there is provision of unlimited liability of partners but it is so, only in case of frauds.
# A partner is not personally liable, solely by reason of being a partner of the limited liability
partnership.
# A partner of an LLP shall not be saved from the personal liability for his own wrongful act or
omission, but again a partner shall not be personally liable for the wrongful act or omission of
any other partner of the limited liability partnership.
# Reconstruction arrangement (Mergers, Amalgamation) and winding up of LLP
# Sec. 58 of the LLP Act provides for compromise, arrangements or reconstruction of LLPs.
Secs 59-61 talk about the winding up and dissolution of a limited liability partnership. Winding
up of an LLP may be either voluntary or by the Tribunal. The various grounds of winding up of
an LLP by a tribunal are as follows:
# If the LLP decides (by resolution) that the LLP would be wound up by the tribunal;
# If the number of partners of the LLP is reduced below two;
# if the LLP is unable to pay its debts;
# If the LLP has acted against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security
of state or public order;
# If the LLP has made a default in filing with the Registrar the statements of accounts and
solvency or annual return for any five consecutive financial years;
# If the tribunal is of the opinion that it is just and equitable that the LLP be wound up.
Taxation of LLPs in India

Our LLP Act is silent regarding taxation of LLP under the income tax act. At international level,
however LLPs are treated as a pass through entity and accordingly, income taxed is levied on
partner and not on LLP. It is relevant to note that the Concept Paper on LLPs prepared by the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs had recommended that LLPs should also be given a pass through
status. However, in India, as per Finance Act 2009, for purpose of Income Tax. The LLP shall be
treated and taxed like a partnership firm. In India, the Govt. has notified that LLPâ€™s would be
in the same manner as the partnerships i.e. it will be levied on the LLP itself and the partners shall
be exempted from tax. There is also no tax on conversion of Partnership Firms into LLPâ€™s.
One important role to be played by the designated partner is that the income tax return should be
signed and verified by the designated partners and where for any unavoidable reason the
designated partner is not able to sign or where there is no designated partner, it can be done so by
any other partner.
Lacunas in the Act

The continued application of Section 11 of the Indian Companies Act
Though there are many salient features of the LLP Act still there are some lacunas of the Act
which are needed to be addressed for the success of the Act,Most significant amongst them
appears to be the continued application of Section 11 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which
requires that any entity which associates more than 20 persons must, of necessity, be registered as
a company under the Companies Act, 1956. The limit on the number of partners was not
prescribed which was seen by lawyers, among others, a forceful incentive to incorporate
themselves into LLPs. This article also discuss against the obviousness of this assumption. In the
same way, the authors have doubts that, if the LLP Act would be able to bypass the requirements
of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules and permit an association between "advocates"
and "non-advocates".
Silent on tax treatment

Our LLP Act is silent regarding taxation of LLP under the income tax act. At international level,
however LLPs are treated as a pass through entity and accordingly, income taxed is levied on
partner and not on LLP. However, in India , as per Finance Act 2009 LLP will be treated as
partnership firms for the purpose of Income Tax and will be taxed like a partnership firm Cannot
be formed for charitable purposes It is another defect of an Indian LLP that it cannot be formed
for charitable purposes. cannot come out with its IPO
Though the LLP is a separate entity distinct from its partner and have many similarities and
benefits of a body corporate, still one of the lacunas of the act is that, It cannot come out with its
IPO and raise money from the public which a company can easily do.
Conclusion
Some of the advantages of this form of business structure include low cost of incorporation,
unlimited capacity separate legal entity, distinct from its partners and partner liability being
limited to their agreed contribution. It has perpetual succession which has nothing to do with the
partners exit or entry. The management also being flexible that it can be governed only by an
agreement between partners. This form of entity is fusion, combining distinct features of a
company with that of a traditional partnership.
For the better implementation and successful outcome even the company law authorities, which
have to administer these LLP have been mandated to administer LLPs, albeit a lighter set of
compliance and reporting is vis a vis companies. In a nut shell the LLP model has the potential to
effectively act as an engine of growth for the economic development of country and is likely to
foster the growth of professional services in the country. LLP, as an alternate business model,
will encourage joint ventures and make Indian services sectors globally competitive.
CONCLUSION
In the end, I would like to opine that the real legal practice is absolutely different from the
theoretical version of law which we study. Without exposure to the real world, one cannot
understand the analytical and positive application of law. What we study is the body, but
what we have learned from this internship is the mechanism of this body.
I was surprised to see how the simplest of laws were applicable in the most difficult of
situations, how loopholes leave so much scope for evolution and improvisat ion today in this
field. I also observed that law is everything but constant with the same soul as that of a
human.
In the end I would like to advance a vote of thanks and gratitude for reading this report
thoroughly and for giving me this wonderful opportunity to grow my vision. I conclude this
report with a great lot in my mind.

Internship Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Internship Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNSHIP REPORT

SUBMITTED TO THE FAIRFIELD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT &

Unde r the Supervision of: Submitted by:

FAIRFIELD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY

I,_______________, student of B.B.A.LLB10th semester, Enrolment No. __________,

(6.) State v. Vankatesh Raman

(8.) Dr. Satyam Minocha v. Smt. Indumala Kaur and Anr.

(9.) Delnaaz v/s Jaspreet Singh Jolly & ors.

(10.) Ram Engineers v. Easum Reyrolle Ltd.

(11.) Rani v. Sham Lal

(12.) DAYAMUDDIN V/S DDA

(14.) Pratishtha v. Brij Mohan

(15.) State v. Neeraj Maan

(16.) Himanshi Singh V. Himank Kumar Singh

(17.) State v. Ram Vilas Singh

(18.) Mr. Deewakar Gandas v. Mr. Uddham Chand

(19.) Ms. Neha Mohan v. Ms Sneh Bhatia & Ors.

(20.) Shri Fiza Hussainara v. Zaffar Hussainara

(21.) Prem Mohan V. Geetanjali

(22.) C.V. Ramma Babu V. SunFeast Tours &Holidays & Ors.

(23.) Mohd. Rafi V. North MCD

(24.) Vivek Dhani v. Jasbir Dhingra

SERIAL LIST OF RESEARCH WORK PAGE

IN THE MATTER OF:

STAR WEAR WORKERS … PETITIONER

SUBJECT- WINDING UP OF RESPONDENT COMPANY

NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 18T H September, 2020

BEFORE THE HON’BLE APPELLANT TRIBUNAL

PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002

4TH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET,

NEW DELHI- 110003

IN THE MATTER OF:

DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

PARAG SODHI AND OTHERS

NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 18th May, 2020

IN THE COURT OF SH. PUNIT PAHWA, LEARNED METROPOLITAN

IN THE MATTER OF:

SUBJECT - DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE

NEXT DATEOF HEARING: 29th July 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 26th June 2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SUBJECT: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN THE OFFENCE OF DISHONOUR

SUBJECT: PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER UNDER SECTION 302, INDIAN PENAL

NEX T DATE OF HEARI NG: 5 July 2020.

SUBJECT - RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT AND THE AMOUNT TOWARDS

IN THE COURT OF SHRI MUKESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ADJ PATIALA HOUSE

SUBJECT- DEFAMATION AND HARM TO REPUTATION /SUIT FOR DAMAGES

NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 28th August 2020

IN THE COURT OF MAHAVIR SINGHAL, ADJ, TIS HAZARI, NEW DELHI.

SUBJECT MATTER- Suit for declaration, possession, damages & permanent

IN THE MATTER OF-

SUBJECT MATTER- Suit for recovery of amount.

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUBJECT MATTER:- Contempt Petition u/s 12 of Contempt of Courts Act , 1981and

IN THE MATTER OF:

NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 14-04-2020.

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S MAYCO HOIST & CRANES MFG. CO ….Petitione r

SUBJECT MATTER:-Application for maintenance unde r section 125 of Code Of

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

NEXT DATE OF HEARING: - 5/03/2020

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUBJECT MATTER:- Bail application under section 439 of Code of Criminal

I,_____, student of B.B.A.LLB10th semester, Enrolment No. ,