INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

PRACTICAL DIARY

2020-2023

LL.B VI SEMESTER EXAMINATION

MOOT COURT AND PARTICIPATION IN TRIAL PROCEEDING

ROLL NO : 201291400021
REGISTRATION NO : IPS000178
NAME : BHUPENDRA KUMAR
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ex. No.HEADING

01 OBSERVATION-1 OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)

02 OBSERVATION-2 OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)
03 OBSERVATION-3 OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)
04 OBSERVATION-1 OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)
05 OBSERVATION-2 OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)
06 OBSERVATION-3 OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)
07 MOOT COURT-1 PROBLEM
08 MOOT COURT-2 PROBLEM
09 PROFORMA FOR REPORTING THE F.I.R.
 OBSERVATION-1

OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)

 OBSERVATION OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)

Date: 15.02.2023

Name of the Court: Saket District Court

Suit No. CS. (COMM.) No. 93/2022

Name of Parties: M/s Perfect Maintenance Services Versus Aeiforia Constriction Pvt. Ltd.

Brief Facts: Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 10,98,005.04/- along with Pendentelite interest
@ 24% per annum from the Defendant. The Plaintiff is in the business of cooling plant and air
conditioners and defendant had approached the Plaintiff for installation of air conditioner in its site
and thereafter various purchase orders were issued by the Defendant. As per the case of the Plaintiff,
the Defendant after installation of the said air conditioners not settled the account as per the purchase
orders issued by the defendant. Thereafter, Plaintiff has sent various communications to the Defendant
with regard to payment of abovesaid balance amount but Defendant denied all the said
communications. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 10,98,005.04/-
along with pendentelite interest @ 24% per annum before the District judge (Commercial), Saket
Court, Delhi.

Thereafter, Defendant marked its appearance through counsel and filed the vakalatnama. The
Defendant also submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Plaintiff already received the
entire amount including present recovery amount as full final settlement and also filed the
original settlement document which the Plaintiff himself signed it. Thereafter, Hon’ble Court
recorded the statement of Plaintiff that the Plaintiff knowingly not filed the said document
along with the suit even the said document was in possession of the Plaintiff. The said
document after recording the statement marked as Exhibit. The Hon’ble Court further directed
the defendant to file written statement.

The Defendant filed its written statement stating that the suit for recovery of Rs.10,98,005.94/-
filed by the Plaintiff is a gross abuse of the process of the law. The Plaintiff deliberately
concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble Court that the Plaintiff himself settled the
amount claimed through this present suit with the Defendant as full and final settlement. The
Defendant further mentioned there that the Plaintiff on 09.10.2019 with the Defendant settled
his entire claim by receiving Rs. 6,46,565.80/- through cheque bearing no. 015996 dated
16.09.2019, Rs. 2,93,350.80/- through cheque bearing no. 800763 dated 09.10.2019 and Rs.
19,000/- through voucher no. 850 and all the payments were duly honoured in the bank
account of Plaintiff. The total amount received by the Plaintiff is Rs. 40,77,972/- as full and
final settlement. The Plaintiff has properly executed the statement for settlement/
reconciliation of accounts with plaintiff which bears the signature of the Plaintiff. That the said
statement of settlement/reconciliation was duly signed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff
received the entire amount as full and final settlement way back and this material fact has been
suppressed by the Plaintiff and the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 06.09.2022 has been duly
recorded that the Plaintiff has desperately not filed that document with his plaint.

Thereafter, no one appeared on behalf of Plaintiff even after the final opportunity for
appearance of Plaintiff granted by the Hon’ble. The Hon’ble Court has dismissed in default
and for non-prosecution on behalf of Plaintiff.

Steps taken by the advocate today

The Advocate marked the appearance on behalf of Defendant and made submission before the
Hon’ble Court in respect of conduct of the Plaintiff as on one appeared on behalf of Plaintiff
for the pas two dates.

Brief of today’s proceedings in the court

The Counsel for the Defendant was present but no one appeared on behalf of Plaintiff even
after the final opportunity for appearance of Plaintiff granted by the Hon’ble. The Hon’ble
Court has dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on behalf of Plaintiff.

Today’s order by the presiding officer of the court.

The Counsel for the Defendant was present but no one appeared on behalf of Plaintiff even
after the final opportunity granted to the Plaintiff for appearance. The present case has
dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on behalf of Plaintiff.

Name of the counsel for the plaintiff: None

Name of the counsel for the defendant: Sanjay Kumar

Name and Signature of the Student

Bhupendra Kumar

Certified that Mr. / Mrs. / Km. Bhupendra Kumar

Attended the court proceeding in the above noted case today.

Date: 15.02.2023

Full Signature of the Lecturer In-charge

 OBSERVATION-2

OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)

 OBSERVATION OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)

Date: 23.02.2023

Name of the Court: Karkardooma, District Court, Delhi

Suit No. 676/2020

Name of Parties: Sh. Manoj Bansal Versus M/s Aeiforia Construction Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Brief Facts:
The present Suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘Code’) filed by the
Plaintiff, inter alia, seeking a decree of recovery of Rs. 1,60,961/- inclusive of Goods and Service
Tax alongwith interest of 25% per annum. The Plaintiff supplied various goods to the Defendant on
the basis of purchase order issued by the Defendant. The Defendant after receiving the purchase
orders made payment but as per the Plaintiff the Defendant has not provided complete payment for
the said purchase order and the payment made by the Defendant is only the part payment. The
Plaintiff filed various communications, statement of accounts, ledger entries etc. to substantiate its
claim. The Hon’ble Court issued notice to the Defendants after considering the submssions of the
Plaintiff.
Thereafter, the Defendant through its counsel marked its appearance and filed the vakalatnama. The
counsel for the Defendant also filed the application on behalf of the Defendants under order XXXVII
Rule 3 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave to defend the suit. The Defendants in
its application denied the claim of the Plaintiff and submitted that the present Suit purportedly filed
under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘Code’) is not maintainable inasmuch as
there is no written contract whatsoever between the parties. The Defendants further submitted that no
Invoice, no Purchase Order, no challan whatsoever has been annexed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff
further delineated a Table in Para 4 of the Plaint listing out purported sale-purchase in three sites.
The Plaintiff delineated opening balances for the two sites in the ‘Debit’ column viz. Delhi Site – Rs.
65,603/- and UP Site – Rs. 37,808/-. with the present Suit as regards substantiating the Opening
Balance for the two sites in the ‘Debit’ column viz. Delhi Site – Rs. 65,603/- and UP Site – Rs.
37,808/-. The aforementioned opening balances are denied by the Defendants. It is the submission of
the Defendants that in the absence of an Invoice, Purchase Order or Challan substantiating the
aforementioned Opening Balances the same are completely fictitious and concocted figures and on
this ground alone the Defendants should be granted leave to defend in the present Suit. The
Defendant further submitted that since the Suit was filed only on 01.12.2020, the aforementioned
Opening Balances are hopelessly barred by Limitation.
Steps taken by the advocate today

Fresh Vakalatnama filed by the Counsel fir the Defendant as the previous counsel recused
himself from the present case and sought time for arguments on leave to defend application.

Brief of today’s proceedings in the court

The Plaintiff was ready for the arguments but the counsel for the Defendant was not ready for the
arguments for the application for leave to defend as he has been recently engaged due the said reason
the court has given him final opportunity to address the arguments.

Today’s order by the presiding officer of the court.

Fresh Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Defendant. The same be taken on record.
Matter is at the stage of arguments on leave to defend application.
Ld. Counsel for the Defendant seeks adjournment for arguing on leave to defend application as
he is recently engaged in the present matter and he seeks time for the perusal of the case file.
Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has vehemently opposed the adjournment sought by
the Defendant stating that the Defendant is deliberately delaying the matter by repeatedly
changing the counsels.
Still in the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for arguments on leave to defend application
on 12.05.2023.
No further adjournment will be granted to the Defendant on any pretext on NDOH.

Name of the counsel for the plaintiff: Sh. Sumit Nandnani and Sh. Shushant Nischal

Name of the counsel for the defendant: Sh. Sanjay Kumar

Name and Signature of the Student

Bhupendra Kumar

Certified that Mr. / Mrs. / Km. Bhupendra Kumar

Attended the court proceeding in the above noted case today.

Date:

Full Signature of the Lecturer In charge

 OBSERVATION-3

OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)

 OBSERVATION OF THE TRIAL (CIVIL)

Date: 18.01.2023

Name of the Court: Rohini, District Court, Delhi

Suit No. CS SCJ 304/2019

Name of Parties: Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. Versus Chimmo Devi

Brief Facts:
Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,74,738.38 form the Defendant. The Plaintiff is
the electricity provider company and the Defendant is the registered consumer of the Plaintiff
Company in respect of electricity connection with a sanction load of 2.00 KW. The said
connection was energized on his application. That at the time of grant/installation of the above
stated electricity connection, defendant undertook to pay all the electricity charges raised by
the Plaintiff Company on the basis of electricity consumed by him against the said connection.
That since the aforesaid electricity connection is in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant
is the duty bound to pay the bills. So raised by the Plaintiff Company from time to time on
account of electricity supplied by the Plaintiff Company and in case of default in making
payment of bills raised, the Defendant is under legal and statutory obligation to pay the late
payment surcharge also on the outstanding dues as per DERC Regulation, applicable from
time to time. That after the energization of the said electricity connection at premises of the
Defendant, the defendant was using the aforesaid electricity connection but the defendant
failed to pay the bills, raised by the Plaintiff Company against the services availed by the
defendant and thus the electricity supply of the Defendant was disconnected. That as per the
records maintained by the Plaintiff Company, the outstanding dues have been accumulated to
the tune of Rs. 1,74,738.38/- as on 23.03.2018 when the final bill was prepared. Thereafter, the
Plaintiff approached to this Hon'ble Court by way of filing the present suit for recovery.
The Defendant has not filed the written statement on time and the Hon’ble Court closed the
right of the Defendant to file its written statement due to time barred. The matter is now at the
stage of cross examination of the witnesses.

Steps taken by the advocate today

Advocate was unavailable due to some personal difficulty. Therefore, AR informed the
Hon’ble Court that they are again ready for settlement.

Brief of today’s proceedings in the court

Both the parties showed interest for the settlement and thereafter, the Hon’ble Court
transferred the said matter to Lok Adalat.
Today’s order by the presiding officer of the court.
Matter recived back unsettled from the National Lok Adalat. It appears that there is a
possibility of settlement between the parties. Therefore, the present matter is referred to
upcoming Lok Adalat for talks of compromise between the parties.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the upcoming National Lok Adalat to be held on
11.02.2023.

Name of the counsel for the plaintiff: Sh. Madan Mohan

Name of the counsel for the defendant: Sh. Uday Prakash

Name and Signature of the Student

Bhupendra Kumar

Certified that Mr. / Mrs. / Km. Bhupendra Kumar

Attended the court proceeding in the above noted case today.

Date:

Full Signature of the Lecturer In charge

 OBSERVATION-1

OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)

 OBSERVATION OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)

Date: 06.09.2022

Name of the Court: Saket District Court, Delhi

Case No. 1768/2019

Name of the Parties: M/s Super Milk Products versus GT Enterprises

U/S 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 Police Station Defence Colony

Brief of the prosecution case:

That the present complaint has filed by the Complainant under section 138/142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That the Complainant and the
accused No. 1 entered into a Franchise agreement on 01.08.2016 and thereafter running their store as
Franchisee of the Complainant. That the accused no.2 is the authorized signatory of accused no.1 and
has been purchasing various milk products & other allied products from the Complainant during the
course of business. That the accused no. 1 had purchased several milk products and other allied
products in the sum of Rs. 1,20,151/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Fifty
One Only) from the Complainant. The said goods were received by the accused persons on
21.04.2018. However, the accused persons failed in performing the obligations and after several oral
requests the accused persons had issued a post dated cheque bearing no. 000142 dated 01.10.2018 for
an amount of Rs. 1,20,151/- (Rupees One Lac Twenty Thousand One Hundred and fifty One only)
drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Khasra NO. 65, Harpool Singh Road, Main Dwarka Janakpuri
Road, New Delhi - 110045 in favour of the Complainant i.e. M/s Super Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. with
the assurance that the said cheque shall be duly honoured on presentation. That based on the
representations and assurances of the accused persons, the Complainant presented the aforesaid
cheque bearing no. 000142, with its bankers, Kotak Mahindra Bank, A-266, Defence Colony, New
Delhi - 110001 Branch for collection within the period of their validity. However, the
aforementioned cheque was returned unpaid by the bankers of the accused persons for the reason
‘Funds Insufficient’ on 07.12.2018. That as required under Law, the Complainant had served upon
the accused persons a demand notice dated 03.01.2019 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, by
Courier dated 04.01.2019 and copy of the said notices were also sent through Speed-Post dated
07.01.2019 and called upon the accused persons to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque
within the period of 15 days from the receipt of legal notice. The said notices were duly served upon
the accused persons on 05.01.2019 by Courier and copy of the said notice was duly served on
08.01.2019 by Speed-Post at their respective addresses. Therefore, it is prayed by the Complainant
that the accused persons may kindly be summoned, prosecuted and punished in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 138 and 142 of the amended Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may very kindly be pleased to
direct the accused persons to pay amount of the cheque to the complaint as prescribed under law
which this Hon’ble Court may recover from the accused imposing the penalty on the accused. That
the notice of intimation and demand was sent to the accused persons and was duly served upon them.
 The accused person failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice.
After, pre summoning of evidence, the Hon’ble Court issued summons for appearance of the accused
persons but no one appeared and then the Hon’ble Court has issued bailable and non bailable
warrants against the accused persons as none of them were present at the time of listing of the matter.
Now, the Hon’ble Court has declared the accused as absconder.

Defence taken or likely to be taken by the accused:

The Accused can mention before the Hon’ble Court that the he has shifted his house from other place
and sue to that reason he had not received the summons and warrants.

Steps taken by the advocate today

The Counsel for the Complainant apprised the Court that the accused persons are not appeared till
today and requested to ask the status of arrest of the said persons from the IO.

Brief of today’s proceedings in the court

The Counsel for the Complainant apprised the Court that the accused persons are not appeared till
today and requested to ask the status of arrest of the said persons from the IO. The process against one
of the accused namely Gurjeet Singh has not been issued yet. Therefore, the Complainant is directed
to file amended complaint along with amended memo of parties.

Today’s order by the presiding officer of the court.

The process against one of the accused namely Gurjeet Singh has not been issued yet. Therefore, the
Complainant is directed to file amended complaint along with amended memo of parties. SHO is
directed to trace the other accused Mohan Singh and file the status report on the next date of hearing.

Name of the counsel for the accused: None

Name of the counsel for the Complainant: Sh. Gyanesh Bhardwaj

Name and Signature of the Student

Bhupendra Kumar

Certified that Mr. / Mrs. / Km. Bhupendra Kumar

Attended the court proceeding in the above noted case today.

Date: 06.09.2022

Full Signature of the Lecturer In-charge

 OBSERVATION-2

OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)

 OBSERVATION OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)

Date: 06.09.2022

Name of the Court: Saket District Court, Delhi

Case No. 16178/2019

Name of the Parties: M/s Super Milk Products versus S R S Group

U/S 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 Police Station: Defence Colony

Brief of the prosecution case:

That the present complaint has filed by the Complainant under section 138/142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That the accused no.1 is
engaged in the business of event management and organised an event at Counter No. K6, SRS Food
Court, Pragati Maidan, Near Hall No. 7, New Delhi – 110001 in which the accused persons had
allowed the Complainant to participate as a milkshake vendor here the Complainant sold its products
(milkshake) in various social events like expos and exhibitions on commission basis. That the accused
persons on oral agreement had provided the tender to the Complainant to sell its products through
Counter No. K6, SRS food Court, Pragati Maidan, Near Hall No. 7, New Delhi – 110001 on
commission basis and it was further agreed that the accused persons will deduct the 30% commission
of the entire sale and pay back 70% of the said sale after physical reconciliation of coupons. That out
of the total sale, the 70% share of the Complainant was Rs. 3,22,302/- (Rupees Three Lac Twenty
Two Thousand Three Hundred and Two Only) which was due from the accused persons. The said sale
had also accepted by the accused persons. Pursuant thereto, the accused persons had also issued
receipts after receiving the said coupons. Thereafter, the Complainant fulfilled their obligations by
selling the said products through the aforesaid counter of the accused persons however accused
persons failed in performing the obligations and after several oral requests the accused persons had
issued a post dated cheque bearing no. 028596 dated 15.04.2019 for an amount of Rs. 3,22,302/-
(Rupees Three Lac Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Two Only) drawn on ICICI Bank,
Mayur Vihar Phase II Branch, Plot No. 3, Locs: Shopping Cnetre, Mayur Vihar Phase II, Delhi -
0110092 in favour of the Complainant i.e. M/s Super Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. with the assurance that
the said cheque shall be duly honoured on presentation. That based on the representations and
assurances of the accused persons, the Complainant presented the aforesaid cheque bearing no.
028596, with its bankers, Kotak Mahindra Bank, A-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110001 Branch
for collection within the period of their validity. However, the aforementioned cheque was returned
unpaid by the bankers of the accused persons for the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’ on 24.06.2019. That
as required under Law, the Complainant had served upon the accused persons a demand notice dated
01.07.2019 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, through Speed Post dated 01.07.2019 and called
upon the accused persons named above to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque within the
period of 15 days from the receipt of legal notice. The said notices were duly served upon the accused
persons on 03.07.2019 by Speed-Post at their respective addresses. That the notice of intimation and
demand was sent to the accused persons and was duly served upon them. The accused persons failed
to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice. That the notice of intimation and
demand was sent to the accused persons and was duly served upon them. The accused person failed to
make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice.
Defence taken or likely to be taken by the accused
Summons has not been issued to the accused persons yet. He can likely to take the defence
that there is no such legitimate liability against the accused persons as he has not signed any
kind of agreement in this regard.

Steps taken by the advocate today

The Counsel for the Complainant seeks time to file substitution if AR as previous AR has left
the company and new AR has been appointed by the Company.

Brief of today’s proceedings in the court

The Counsel for the Complainant seeks time to file substitution if AR as previous AR has left
the company in the present case.

Today’s order by the presiding officer of the court.

The Counsel for the Complainant seeks time to file substitution if AR as previous AR has left
the company and new AR has been appointed by the Company. In view of the same put up
for purpose fixed on 12.04.2023.

Name of the counsel for the accused: None

Name of the counsel for the Complainant: Sh. Gyanesh Bhardwaj

Name and Signature of the Student

Bhupendra Kumar

Certified that Mr. / Mrs. / Km. Bhupendra Kumar

Attended the court proceeding in the above noted case today.

Date: 06.09.2022

Full Signature of the Lecturer In-charge

 OBSERVATION-3

OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)

 OBSERVATION OF THE TRIAL (CRIMINAL)

Date: 01.03.2023

Name of the Court: Tis Hazari District Court, Delhi

Case No. 8049/2019

Name of the Parties: Knox Fit LL Versus Ms. Renu Kalra

U/S 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 Police Station: Kirti Nagar

Brief of the prosecution case:

That the present complaint has filed by the Complainant under section 138/142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That the Complainant and the
accused entered into an agreement to lease on 08.05.2019 for the premises situated at C-5/34,
Safdurjung Development Area, New Delhi - 110029. That as per clause 7 of the said agreement dated
08.05.2019, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as security deposit which is equivalent
to one month rent at the time of signing the agreement. The said payment has been made through two
different cheques i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque no. 382022 and Rs. 2,00,000/- vide cheque no.
382025 both drawn on IDBI Bank. That as per clause no. 4 of the agreement dated 08.05.2019, the
lease deed shall be registered within 30 days of agreement or completion of conversion of basement
floor, whichever is earlier. But the accused has neither converted the Basement as committed under
the provision of the agreement nor get the lease deed registered within time line prescribed under the
said agreement. Therefore, as per clause 4 of the agreement, in case of the said failure, the accused is
obliged to refund the security deposit paid by the Complainant. That the Complainant fulfilled their
obligations by making payment towards security deposit within time however accused person failed in
performing the obligations and after several oral requests the accused person had issued a cheque
bearing no. 659922 dated 03.07.2019 for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) drawn
on Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi - 110054 in favour of the Complainant i.e. Knox Fit LLP
as part payment towards the refund of Security already Deposited by the Complainant with the
assurance that the said cheque shall be duly honoured on presentation. That based on the
representations and assurances of the accused persons, the Complainant presented the aforesaid
cheque bearing no. 659922, with its bankers, IDBI Bank, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi - 110015 Branch for
collection within the period of their validity. However, the aforementioned cheque was returned
unpaid by the bankers of the accused persons for the reason ‘Funds Insufficient’ on 16.08.2019. That
as required under Law, the Complainant had served upon the accused person a demand notice dated
05.09.2019 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, by Registered AD dated 05.09.2019 and called upon
the accused person named above to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque within the period of
15 days from the receipt of legal notice. The said notice was duly served upon the accused person on
06.09.2019 by Registered AD at their respective address. That the notice of intimation and demand
was sent to the accused persons and was duly served upon them. The accused person failed to make
the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the legal notice.
After, pre summoning of evidence, the Hon’ble Court issued summons but the said summons
received back unserved as no such person was found at that address.

Defence taken or likely to be taken by the accused:

Summons has not been issued to the accused persons yet. He can likely to take the defence
that there is no such legitimate liability against the accused persons as he has not signed any
kind of agreement in this regard.
Steps taken by the advocate today
The Counsel for the Complainant filed the fresh addresses of the accused person so that the
summons can be executed against the accused persons.

Brief of today’s proceedings in the court

The Counsel for the Complainant filed the fresh addresses of the accused person so that the
summons can be executed against the accused persons. The Hon’ble Court convinced by the
submissions of the counsel for the complainant and taken on record the fresh address of the
accused person and directed to file Process Fee for the service of summons.
Today’s order by the presiding officer of the court.

Ld. Counsel has filed the application for fresh addresses of the accused person . same is taken on
record. Issue fresh summons to the accused at the address given by
Ld. Proxy Counsel for the complainant through approved registered courier, speed post and e-
mail for 20.04.23. Complainant is directed to file PF and take
steps within 15 days. The Ahlmad is directed to issue the summons only after
ensuring that the same has been done. In case, the complainant provides the Email address and the W
hatsapp No. of the accused, the Ahlmad is directed to send the e-
copy of summons to the Nazarat Branch for service through Email and Whatsapp. Further, complaina
nt is directed to file an affidavit
verifying the correctness of email ID and the Whatsapp No. of the accused.
Nazarat Branch is directed to file report regarding service of summons through e-
mail and Whatsapp before the NDOH. If the complainant wishes
to serve the accused personally on his Whatsapp number and EMail ID, he is
directed to file an affidavit of compliance with respect to service through email as well as Whatsapp. 
Complainant is further directed to place the tracking report
of summons sent through speed post on the next date. In the event the house/office/premises   is  
found   to   be   locked/refusal   to   accept   the
service/any other contingency the process be served through affixation in terms of Section 65, CrPC.

Name of the counsel for the accused: None

Name of the counsel for the Complainant: Sh. Gyanesh Bhardwaj

Name and Signature of the Student

Bhupendra Kumar

Certified that Mr. / Mrs. / Km. Bhupendra Kumar

Attended the court proceeding in the above noted case today.

Date: 06.09.2022

Full Signature of the Lecturer In-charge

 MOOT COURT PROBLEM-1

CRIMINAL

Babulal(Complainant) filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate first class Patiala on
22nd February 2011 against Aryan (accused) under section 133 of the negotiable instrument
act 1881. The complainant stated that the accused had taken from him the loan of Rs 60000
on 6th November 2010 (without interest) for his domestic needs and he(accused) promised to
return the same within 2 months. But instead of repaying the same the accused issued a
cheque of Rs60000 in favour of Complainant in the lieu of the loan. The bank of accused
returned the said cheque with the endorsement insufficient funds. The complainant prayed in
his petition that the accused be punished for bouncing of the cheque. Magistrate summoned
the accused vide his order dated 3rd June 2011 and fixed 28 July 2011 for appearance of the
accused. The accused received the summon but did not appear in the court on the date fixed
28 July 2011. Hence bailable warrants were issued by the court against him on 15th
November 2011 and the accused appeared in the court on 2nd February 2012. The
complainant was regularly attending the court but on 20th March 2012 the case was called
several times and nobody appeared from complainant side. The magistrate after making the
presence of accused dismissed the complaint in default of presence of complaint. The
complainant on 21st April 2012 filed an application for restoration of his complaint by
overring that he inadvertently noted the date in his diary as 20th April 2012 instead of 20th
March 2012. He further stated that his absence from the court was not intentional hence his
complaint restored. The magistrate did not appreciate his argument and dismissed his
application on 11th June 2012. The complainant then files a revision against the order of
Magistrate which was also dismissed by Additional Session Judge Patiala on 12th September
2012. Now the complainant has filed a revision before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High
court against the above orders of the lower courts.
 MOOT COURT PROBLEM-2

CIVIL

The union of Fonda is a multinational society, where the inhabitants, belonging to different
ethnic backgrounds, speak different languages and practice different religious faiths. The
national Moto has always been unity in diversity. Soon after the elections, the central
government took initiative to fulfil the election promise which included in legislative
protection to the private choice of the individuals. The parliament accordingly enacted the
protection of private choice Act, 2016", inter alia, per meeting the honours of the residential
premises in urban areas to freely choice the tenants and the lessee. However the act
prohibited discrimination against schedule caste and schedule tribes. Taking advantage of the
law the honours of the residential premises in urban area immediately started openly
advertising in the daily inviting tenants and lessee. The advertisements typically stated-"only
married couples”,” only vegetarians", etc. Some in their advertisement even openly added-
"no minorities", "no single women". The women working in the film industry, in fashion
designing hospitality etc. Because the main target of the hostile discriminations. When a cine
actress, who was an unwed mother, wanted an apartment near the school where her child was
admitted she failed in getting a lease for the apartment the Owner declined to lease the
apartment at the instance of the Residents welfare association that no lease should be given to
single and mother and cine actress or actor.

The "society for equality", an NGO led by an actress Mrs Ramya Singh filed a writ petition in
the Supreme court of Fonda challenging the constitutional validity of the act of 2016, inter
alia, contending that it is a legislative disguise for reinventing and promoting the historical
discriminations embedded in the society. She alleged that the act of 2016 is the antithesis of
private equality as reflected in the equality act 2010 enacted by the British parliament. She
further I emphasized that the provisions of the impugned Act of 2016 are whole contrary to
the constitutional philosophy of equality. However the union of Fonda file its reply defending
the act of 2016 on the ground at Article 14 does not apply to the individuals. The union of
Fonda further contended that the provisions of impugned act of 2016 execute constitutional
guaranteed freedom to make private choices.

At the admission stage, the attorney general appeared for the union of Fonda and Sought
reference of the writ petition to the constitutional bench of 5 judges on the ground that is
substantial questions of law as the interactions of constitution arise-in as much that the
freedom triumphs over equality in case of conflict between the two. However the bench of two
judges decline to refer the case to 5 judges referred it to the bench of 3 judges.
The matter is listed before the bench of three judges on 4th March 2017 for final discussion.
Proforma for Reporting the First Information (FIR) of a
Cognizable Offence
(Under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code)

An FIR must include the following Items

Police Station…………….. District .........................

1. Personal details of the Complainant / Informant:

(a) Name

(b) Father's / Husband's Name

(c) Address

(d) Phone number & Fax

(e) Email:

2. Place of Occurrence:

a) Distance from the police station

b) Direction from the police station

3. Date and Hour of Occurrence:

4. Offence:

a) Nature of the offence (e.g. murder, theft, rape, etc.)

b) Section (To be decided/written by Office only )

c) Particulars of the property (in case one has got stolen):

5. Description of the accused:

6. Details of witnesses (if any)

7. Complaint: Briefly lay down the facts regarding the incident reported in an accurate way.
Note: At the end of the complaint, the complainant’s/informant’s signature or thumb
impression should be there.

Important: Write your FIR in Hindi only

 Sample FIR
From
(Applicant’sName), Father’s/Husband’s
Name (Applicant’scontact address)
(Applicant’scontact mobile number/Phone number)
Applicant’s e-mail id. (If any)

Date.
To,
The Police Officer In charge
Address (Name of Local Police station)

Sub. : (mention subject e.g. your lost document/phone name and Number)

Respected Sir,

I would like to bring the following facts to your kind notice:

(Include details/contents 1-7 as given in Proforma)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…..

I seek your help and request you to kindly register my F.I.R in the subject matter.

For your ready reference I enclose herewith

(a) Copy of [Complainant/Informant] I.D. proof.

Hope you will do the needful favourably at the earliest.

Thanks and regards

Yours Sincerely
(Complainant/Informant Signature)
(Complainant/Informant Name)