1

INTERNSHIP DIARY

18th JULY, 2023 TO 18th AUGUST, 2023

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. SONAL DUTTA AKSHITA TANDON
INTERNSHIP INCHARGE B.A. LL.B.,
UILS SECTION-C
9th SEMESTER
123/19
 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The internship opportunity I had with Senior Advocate Shri Sanjay Kaushal was a great
chance for learning and professional development. I am grateful for having a chance to meet
many wonderful people and professionals who led me through this internship period.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and special thanks to Senior Advocate Shri
Sanjay Kaushal who in spite of being extraordinarily busy with his duties, took out time to
hear out to me, guide me and keep me on the correct path. I am indebted to Sir for his
guidance and his precious time which he gave to me and ensured that I learnt during this
internship.

I would also like to extend a heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Sonal Dutta, Internship In-Charge,
University institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University for taking necessary decisions and
giving required advices and guidance and arranging all facilities to make this internship a
great learning experience.

Lastly, I would also like to thank my parents without whose support I would have not been
able to undergo this internship. I thank them for their constant encouragement and help.

I perceive this opportunity of interning under Senior Advocate Shri Sanjay Kaushal as a big
milestone in my career development. I will strive to use the skills and knowledge gained in
the best possible way.

AKSHITA TANDON
 3

INDEX

SR. NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. CIVIL CASE 5-7

3. CRIMINAL CASE I 8-0

4. CRIMINAL CASE II 11-13

5. MATRIMONIAL CASE 14-17

6. PERSONAL EXPERIENCE 18

7. CONLUSION 19

8. INTERNSHIP 20
CERTIFICATE

9. INTERNSHIP 21-22
ATTENDANCE

10. EVALUATION FORM 23

 4

INTRODUCTION

This report examines the internship program with Senior Advocate Shri Sanjay Kaushal. My
internship with him has been a commendable learning experience for me. This internship
gave me insight look of the society through the medium of court practice, where I dealt with
people directly to look into their problems under the guidance of my senior and other
associates with the help of whom I was able to complete my internship with an excellent
learning experience.

I visited different court rooms in the High Court as per the matters fixed regularly. I got the
opportunity to hear the advocates argue their cases and the Hon’ble Judges impart justice.

There is rule of law in our society followed in courts, is an aspect equality before the law
which suggest that no person is above law and that every person, whatever be his rank or
condition, is subject to jurisdiction of ordinary courts. This Internship helped me learn the
application of law. It gave life to the legal books I have read over time as part of my syllabus.
 5

CIVIL CASE

CIVIL CASE-I

IN THE COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CASE FILING NUMBER: CWP NO. 16340 OF 2019

CASE TITLE:

1. ANKUR CHHABRA
2. MOHINDER KUMAR
Versus
1. STATE OF HARYANA
2. HARYANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Civil writ petition under Article 226 for quashing the announcement vide which the
respondent Commission has scrapped the recruitment test already conducted and directing the
respondent Commission to continue with the recruitment process and further directing the
respondent commission not to destroy the OMR sheets of the examination already conducted.

Brief facts of the case:

1. That the petitioner along with other candidates appeared for a recruitment test held in the
state of Haryana for which he fulfilled all the eligibility requirements. The test was taken
by more than 2000 candidates. After the test was conducted, the Commission received a
couple of representations on the ground that and in lieu of this the Commission scrapped
the test already conducted and issued a new date for the recruitment test.
2. That the petitioner approached the lower court and proceedings were already under way
in the lower court and in the mean time the Commission issued a new date for the
conducting the recruitment exam again.

Arguments by the petitioner:

1. That the petitioner argued that there were only 44 candidates who filed representations
received by the to the Commission out of the 2000 candidates who appeared for the
 6

recruitment test and those 44 candidates filed representations only because they had
performed poorly in the examination. The petitioner further argued that the Commission
in order to favour those 44 candidates scrapped the exam already conducted.
2. That the petitioner also argued that conducting the exam again would be a huge financial
burden on the government and would also cause difficulty to the candidates and yet the
Commission had ignored all such difficulties and directed to conduct the exam again
which showed that the Commission was favouring a few candidates while burdening the
government and causing difficulty to such a large number of candidates.
3. That the petitioner further argued that there were no such discrepancies so as to
completely scrap off the exam. Only a couple of questions had been repeated which had
come in the previous years and this was not a valid reason to scrap the exam.
4. That the petitioner further asserted that the case was already pending in the lower court
and before any decision could come, the Commission issued a new date for the re-
conduct of the recruitment exam which showed the malafide intention of the Commission
and its partial behaviour in favour of those 44 candidates.

Arguments by the respondent:

1. That the respondent on the other hand argued that it had received a large number of
representations and in order to maintain fairness and neutrality the previous paper had
been scrapped off and a new date for the conduct of recruitment examination had been
issued.
2. That the Commission asserted that it was not favouring anyone and it was fair enough to
conduct the examination again as most of the questions had appeared in the examinations
in the previous years.

Prayer by the petitioner:

It was respectfully prayed by the petitioner that the announcement vide which the respondent
Commission has scrapped the recruitment test already conducted be quashed and further
prayed for directing the respondent Commission to continue with the recruitment process and
also prayed for directing the respondent commission not to destroy the OMR sheets of the
examination already conducted.
 7

Prayed by the respondent:

It was respectfully prayed by the respondent that proceedings be dropped against them. The
Commission also prayed that it had no malafide intention and was not favouring any
candidate and in order to ensure fairness and neutrality, it be allowed to consider the exam
previously conducted as scrapped and allow for conducting the recruitment exam again.

Status of the case:

The case has been adjourned to 18th September, 2023 as it was already 4:35 p.m. and court
time was over.
 8

CRIMINAL CASES

CRIMINAL CASE-I

IN THE COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CASE FILING NUMBER: CRM-M 8284 of 2022

CASE TITLE:

GEEFIVE GLOBAL PROJECTS

Versus

1. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2. STATE OF HARYANA

3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

4. RAHUL CHATURVEDI

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC for issuance of directions to Respondent no. 3
(Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, Haryana) to decide representation sent by petitioner to
take steps in consonance with the appropriate authority in USA to arrest Respondent no. 4
namely Rahul Chaturvedi as his passport has been revoked and he has been declared as a
proclaimed offender and thus his stay in USA is illegal.

Facts:

1. That Respondent No. 4 i.e., Rahul Chaturvedi was to invest 207 crores in a project at
Sonepat. The transaction could only be furthered on a receipt of Rs. 2 crores as Priority
fee. Accordingly the petitioner made two payments of Rs. 15,00,150 and Rs. 2,00,00,020
and the same was acknowledged by respondent no. 4. Along with Respondent no. 4, one
RN Shukla also acknowledged the payment.
2. That Respondent no. 4 stated RN misappropriated funds and thus sought termination of
the agreement. Respondent no. 4 was asked to refund the amounts of Rs. 2 crores and Rs.
15 Lac however, he failed to refund the amounts. A settlement was made as per which the
respondent no. 4 was to refund Rs. 2.69 crores.
 9

3. That Respondent no. 4 issued a cheque for Rs. 2.69 crores however, the cheque was
returned with the remarks ‘INSUFFICIENT FUNDS’. An FIR was registered under
Section 406 and 420 of IPC against respondent no. 4 and RN.
4. That the Investigating Authority confiscated the passport of respondent no. 4 but
respondent no. 4 flew away to USA with the help of the Investigating Authority. An FIR
under Section 174-A was registered. However, the concerned authorities failed to take
any action and also failed to direct the appropriate authorities in USA to extradite
respondent no. 4.

Arguments by the petitioner:

1. That the petitioner argued that the respondent no. 4 failed to refund the amount due to the
petitioner. Respondent no. 4 in order to discharge his legal liability issued a cheque for
the amount due knowing the fact that there was paucity of funds in his bank account.
2. That the petitioner further argued that the concerned authorities failed to take any action
against respondent no. 4 and on the other hand respondent no. 3 connived with respondent
no. 4 and helped respondent no. 4 to illegally leave the country and fly to USA.
Respondent no. 3 also failed to come in contact with the concerned authorities in USA
and to order for the extradition of respondent no. 4. Moreover, the passport of respondent
no. 4 has been impounded and such a situation the stay of respondent no. 4 in USA is
illegal and he is bound to be extradited.
3. That the petitioner also argued that respondent no. 4 has intentionally initiated bankruptcy
proceedings in USA in order to evade from his liability of refund the amount of Rs. 2.69
crores to the petitioner. The respondents in connivance with each other have ensured that
respondent no. 4 is not made to refund the amount due to the petitioner.

Arguments by the respondents:

1. That Respondent no. 3 argued that that appropriate proceedings have been initiated by
him and the concerned authorities in USA have been contacted in USA to initiate
extradition proceedings against respondent no. 4. He also stated that the petitioner has
been levelling false allegations that he helped respondent no. 4 to run from India to USA.
 10

2. That respondent no. 4 further asserted that respondent no. 4 has on his own using his
connections flown to USA without any help from the side of any of the respondents.
3. Respondent no. 4 on the other hand argued that he has initiated bankruptcy proceedings in
USA as he is not in the financial position to pay the amount of Rs. 2.69 crores to the
petitioner in spite of his willingness to pay.

Prayer by the petitioner:

It was respectfully prayed by the petitioner that respondent no. 3 be ordered to initiate
appropriate proceedings and contact the concerned authorities in USA for the extradition of
respondent no. 4. The petitioner also prayed that respondent no. 4 be directed to refund the
amount of Rs. 2.69 crores to the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed for any other relief
which the Hon’ble court deemed fit to be given in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.

Prayer by the respondents:

1. It was respectfully prayed by the Respondent no. 3 that proceedings be dropped against
him as false allegations have been levelled by the petitioner against him and he has
contacted the concerned authorities in USA for the extradition of respondent no. 3.
2. The respondent no. 4 on the other hand prayed that he is not in a financial position to
refund the amount of Rs. 2.69 crores to the petitioner which is evident from the
bankruptcy proceedings initiated by him in USA.

Status of the case:

Proceedings for the extradition of the accused Rahul Chaturvedi have been initiated by the
State of Haryana in the required format. The case has been listed on 20th September, 2023 for
further proceedings.
 11

CRIMINAL CASE-II

IN THE COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CASE FILING NUMBER: CRM-M 35343 of 2022

CASE TITLE:

1. BALDEV CHAND BANSAL

2. TARJINDER KUMAR BANSAL
VERSUS
1. STATE OF PUNJAB
2. SUKHDEV SINGH

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, quashing of order vide which petitioners were declared
proclaimed offenders and quashing of order vide which the anticipatory bail of the petitioner
no. 2 has been rejected.

Brief facts of the case:

1. That the petitioners are Directors of M/s BCL Homes Limited undertaking the business of
developer of colonies. During the course of business, BCL initiated the development of a
colony for which bookings for the flats were received. The respondent no. 2 booked one
plot for which he deposited Rs. 2,60,000/-and further payments were made bringing the
total to Rs. 3,99,861/-. However, the said project could not be developed and therefore he
flats could not be handed over.
2. That the petitioners started undertaking settlements with the allottees. Two cheques were
issued in the favour of respondent no. 2 however, both of them were dishonoured and
respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The
petitioners were unable to appear before the trial court and were hence declared as
proclaimed offenders.
3. That the entire amount of cheques was paid to the respondent no. 2 during the pendency
of the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 2. Respondent no. 2 raised an issue
that the petitioners had not paid interest on the amounts of the cheques and preferred
directions that FIR be registered against the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 had already been
granted anticipatory bail however, petitioner no. 2 was denied anticipatory bail when he
filed the application.
 12

4. That when the petitioners went to the court to submit the bail bonds, a defect was found in
the said bail bonds and the petitioners were unable to appear before the court and
therefore their bail application was rejected. The petitioners were asked to rectify the
defect in the bail bonds and appear in the court on the next date of hearing however, by
that lockdown had been imposed and the courts were shut due to which the petitioners
could not submit the bail bonds. Subsequently, anticipatory bail has been granted to
petitioner no 1 but not to petitioner no. 2.

Arguments by the petitioner no. 2:

1. That the petitioners asserted that they are ready and willing to pay the interest however,
respondent no. 2 with malafide intention has preferred an application that an FIR be
registered against the petitioners in order to delay the payment of interest.
2. That the petitioners also stated that the objective of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is compensatory and not punitive. The primary purpose is to ensure
compensation to the complainant which the respondent no. 2 has got.
3. That the petitioners further asserted that they have already paid the amounts of the
cheques and only the interest amount is left which they are willing to pay however, the
respondent is not ready to take the same which clearly shows that the respondent no. 2
has some dishonest intention.
4. That the petitioner no. 2 also argued that petitioner no. 1 has been granted anticipatory
bail however, his application for anticipatory bail has been rejected on grounds not stated.

Arguments by the respondent no. 2:

1. That the respondent no. 2 argued that the petitioners have failed to pay the interest
amount to the respondent no. 2 with the malafide intention of running away from his
liability to pay the interest amount.
2. That the respondent no. 2 further asserted that there is no other option than to take
punitive action against the petitioners as they have knowingly failed to pay the interest
amount.
 13

Prayer by the petitioner no. 2:

It was therefore respectfully prayed by petitioner no. 2 that complaint under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act against petitioner no. 2 be quashed. The petitioner no. 2
further prayed for quashing of order vide which the petitioners were declared proclaimed
offenders and also prayed for quashing of order vide which the anticipatory bail of the
petitioner no. 2 has been rejected.

Prayer by the respondent no. 2:

It was therefore respectfully prayed by respondent no. 2 that petitioners be directed to pay the
interest amount. The respondent no. 2 further prayed that punitive action be taken against
both the petitioners.

Status of the case:

The case has been further fixed for 23rd August, 2023 has the Hon’ble Justice was on leave.
 14

MATRIMONIAL CASE

IN THE COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CASE FILING NUMBER: FAO-M No. 2 of 2022

CASE TITLE: AMANPREET KAUR V. KANWALVIR SINGH KANG

Brief facts of the case:

1. That the present appeal was filed against the impugned judgment and decree passed by
the Additional District Judge vide which the Ld. Court passed the decree of divorce in
favour of the respondent on ground of cruelty and adultery without appreciating the facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. That the grounds of appeal are as stated under:
(i) That the Ld. Court below granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent on
grounds of cruelty and adultery. The appellant had given representations against the
respondent and had stayed in her uncle’s residence for a few days for legal
consultancy and this was considered as adultery by the Ld. Court below.
(ii) That the Ld. Court below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction as the jurisdiction
with regard to seeking of divorce by the dissolution of marriage which is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court and the impugned judgment has been
passed by the Additional District Judge who has not been assigned as a family court
nor any powers have been conferred on him to hear and decide matters of a family
court.
(iii) That the Ld. Trail court in the impugned judgment has stated that the report of CFSL
regarding the voice in recordings placed in CD is possibly the voice of the appellant
however, it cannot be taken into consideration as no certificate under Section 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act has been attached with.
(iv) That the Ld. Court has relied upon the evidence of one Rajesh Chhikara who said that
once he visited the flat of the uncle of the appellant and he found the appellant
wearing the shirt of her uncle. The Ld. Court failed to consider the fact that the
appellant had to extend her stay in her uncle’s home and she had not carried any of
her clothes and other belongings and therefore her uncle had given his shirt to her to
 15

wear at night. However, the Ld. Court considered this incident as adultery on part of
the appellant.
(v) That the grounds on which the respondent has claimed divorce are false, frivolous,
ambiguous and imaginary. The respondent always treated the appellant as a servant
and never gave any love and affection to her. The Ld. Court completely failed to
appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and granted divorce in favour of the
respondent and against the appellant.

Arguments by the appellant:

1. That the appellant argued that the grounds on which the respondent has claimed divorce
are false, frivolous, ambiguous and imaginary. The respondent always treated the
appellant as a servant and never gave any love and affection to her. The Ld. Court
completely failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and granted
divorce in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.
2. That the appellant argued that she had stayed in her uncle’s residence for a few days for
legal consultancy and this was considered as adultery by the Ld. Court below which is
completely wrong.
3. That the appellant further argued that Ld. Court below has wrongly exercised its
jurisdiction as the jurisdiction with regard to seeking of divorce by the dissolution of
marriage which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court and the impugned
judgment has been passed by the Additional District Judge who has not been assigned as
a family court nor any powers have been conferred on him to hear and decide matters of a
family court.
4. That the appellant also asserted that the Ld. Trail Court in the impugned judgment has
stated that the report of CFSL regarding the voice in recordings placed in CD is possibly
the voice of the appellant however, it cannot be taken into consideration as no certificate
under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act has been attached with.
5. That the appellant also argued that the Ld. Court below has relied upon the evidence of
one Rajesh Chhikara who said that once he visited the flat of the uncle of the appellant
and he found the appellant wearing the shirt of her uncle. The Ld. Court failed to consider
the fact that the appellant had to extend her stay in her uncle’s home and she had not
carried any of her clothes and other belongings and therefore her uncle had given his shirt
 16

to her to wear at night. However, the Ld. Court considered this incident as adultery on
part of the appellant.
6. That the appellant argued that the Ld. Court below failed to consider her side of the story
and totally relied upon the false facts and imaginary instances narrated by the respondent.
She also argued that the Ld. Trial Court completely relied upon the witnesses presented
by the respondent who are his friends and it is but obvious that they would testify in the
favour of the respondent only. However, the Ld. Court failed to consider it and relied
upon their statements and granted divorce in favour of the respondent on the ground of
adultery committed by the appellant.

Arguments by the respondent:

1. That the respondent argued that the Ld. Court below has completely gone through the
facts and circumstances presented by both the parties and then only it has come to the
conclusion that the appellant is guilty of adultery.
2. That the respondents further argued that the grounds of appeal are false and frivolous and
the decision of the Ld. Trial Court is absolutely correct and the appellant is guilty of
adultery.
3. That the respondent asserted that all the evidences and witnesses presented by him are
true and only then has the Ld. Court below given its decision in favour of the respondent
and against the appellant.

Prayer by the appellant:

The appellant prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the Additional District Judge
Chandigarh vide which the decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the respondent
and against the appellant be set aside.

Prayer by the respondent:

The respondent prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment passed by
the Additional District Judge Chandigarh vide which the decree of divorce has been granted
in favour of the respondent and against the appellant be set aside.
 17

Status of the case:

The case has been fixed for 22nd September, 2023 for final arguments.
 18

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE DURING MY INTERNSHIP

The High Court is completely different from what is shown in the movies and television
serials. In movies the job of an advocate is more like a detective which is a far from the
reality. The job of an advocate is to assist a party in a suit regarding the proceedings and
appear before the Judge on his behalf.

It was a learning and a fruitful experience for me which enhanced my practical knowledge. I
also learned that it is crucial to be well read with the cases, orders and judgments. While
dealing with a case, it is very important to be well read with the facts of the case. I also
learned that while cross examining a witness it is important to mould the questions in such a
way that the response of the witness comes in your favour. At the end I also learned that it is
not just what you speak matters but how you speak is also equally important.
 19

CONCLUSION

It is a fact that maintaining studies and internships at the same time is not a cakewalk.
However, interning does surely give you a number of advantages over other students engaged
only in studies.

During the internship program, students interact with clients and this enhances their ability to
communicate effectively and to figure out what all facts are relevant and what are not. One of
the reasons to participate in an internship is to learn from advocates who are engaged in the
legal field for decades. Advocates give you an insight into the practical reality of the working
environment in the court. Students also learn to draft contracts, suits, written statements, etc.

Internships also allow students to create links which are very important in the legal
profession. Along with this, interning enables to gain practical working experience which is
equally important to the theoretical portion of law.

I would like to conclude my Internship Diary with a quote from Steve Jobs, the founder of
Apple:

“The only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep
looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it.”

Working hard and consistently is the only way to be successful in the legal profession.