COURT DIARY

Submitted by – vinit kumar jha

th
Class – BALLB 5 semester
Section – D
Roll number - 17217703819

INDEX
S.NO CASE TITLE DATE PAGE NO.
1. Phoolchand gupta v. sh. Rakesh 03/08/2021
gupta and othrs.
2. Smt. Roop rani v. sh. Nemchand 09/08/2021
and othrs.
3. State(NCT of Delhi ) v. vinod jha 12/08/2021
and othrs.
4. Sh. Amit kumar sharma v. Sh. 17/08/2021
Rahul kumar
5. State v. Akhilesh 20/08/2021

6. Sh. Mahesh v. sh. Parvez 23/08/2021

7. 27/08/2021

CASE NO. 1
IN THE COURT OF MST. KARKETA, CIVIL JUDGE, SHAHDARA
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. RCAD 70/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Phoolchand gupta ……………………………………… plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Rakesh gupta and othrs……………………………….defendants

SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND RECOVERY OF

DAMAGES.

FACTS:
1. In this case the plaintiff owns a property and the
defendants who are plaintiff’s son and daughter in-law
were allowed to reside there out of love and affection.
2. The behaviour of the defendants towards the plaintiff
and his family was rough and cruel from last few years
due to which the plaintiff get separated from the
defendants, and allows them to live in a separate part of
the abovesaid property.
3. After separation too they kept their behaviour same as
earlier (abusive and torturing) , and they pressurised the
plaintiff in order to grab the property by threatening
 them to lodge false criminal complaints , to commit
suicide etc.
4. Due to defendant’s cruel and rough behaviour the
plaintiff asked them to vacant the property but
defendants again started threatening plaintiff to commit
suicide.
5. The plaintiff severed all his relation with the defendants
vide public notice dated 27/11/2018 published in daily
local newspaper.
6. The plaintiff no more wanted to keep the defendants as
his licensee so he terminated their license through a the
notice that defendants have to handover the possession
of the said property on or before 15/12/2018.
7. Defendants does not comply the abovesaid notice and
does not vacant the property.
8. The present suit was filed to get a decree for mandatory
injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendants.

OBSERVATION: I observed that the court had ordered

the defendant to present the evidences in court room for the
claim which they are making that is that the defendant too
had a given some money during the purchasing of the
property and he too has the right over the property.
Next date of hearing : 20/11/2021
CASE NO.2

IN THE COURT OF Mr. Balvinder singh , CIVIL JUDGE,

SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. ARC/264/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Roop rani…………………………………………………….Petitioner
Versus
Nemchand and othrs………………………………………..Respondents

EVICTION PETITION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(E) READ WITH

SECTION 25B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT 1958, EVICTION
OF RESPONDENTS AND TENANTS .

FACTS:
1. In this case the petitioner is the owner and landlady
of a property( consist of 2 floors, 2 halls on the first
floor) and the respondents were the tenants in
respect of a hall situated at the first floor of the
property .
2. The hall situated at the first floor was in the
possession of the respondents where they run their
business .
3. Petitioner due to shortage of accommodation for the
purpose of herself and her other family member
started to raise the construction of a hall on the roof
of the second floor but it was demolished by the MCD
officials on 26/12/2015.
4. Therefore the petitioner had no space for her
personal use because mcd warned them not to
construct on the abovesaid property and if they do
the mcd will fine them.
5. The portion at the first floor where the daughter in-
law runs her business wanted to expend her business
for which portion under tenancy of respondent at first
floor was bonafidely required.
6. The grand daughters of the petitioner also wanted to
start their coaching centre in the tenanted premises .
7. Therefor the petitioner requested the respondent to
vacant the hall on the first floor which was under
their possession .
8. The respondent denied to do so and continued their
business in the petitioner’s premises.
9. The present suit was filed to get the possession of the
hall on the first floor from respondent on the ground
of bona-fide necessity of the petitioner.
OBSERVATION: I observed that the other party was
absent on this particular date of hearing ,the honourable
judge granted the ex parte.

Next date of hearing 18/12/2021

CASE NO.3

IN THE COURT OF SH. ACHAL TYAGI, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE , SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
F.I.R NUMBER – 344/14
IN THE MATTER OF:
State ( NCT of Delhi)
Versus
Sh. Vinodh jha and othrs.
F.I.R UNDER SECTION 323, SECTION 341, SECTION 427,
SECTION 34 PF IPC
POLICE STATION- GTB ENCLAVE DELHI
FACTS:
 1. In this case the victim who is a press reporter used to
park his car in front of accused’s brother’s house and
used to stand there without any purpose.
2. The accused’s brother asked him many times to remove
his from the front of his house but victim denied every
time to do so due to which they used to had some
verbal fight sometimes.
3. After many requests by victim’s brother, when victim
doesn’t remove his car, the accused’s family lodged a
complaint against the victim for causing nuisance.
4. After the complaint the victim become more violent and
started hitting the plants with his car which was planted
by accused’s family members .
5. One day the victim was coming from his office in his car
when he reached near his home the accused and his
family was standing there to talk with victim, in the heat
of moment the victim started abusing the accused’s
family .
6. The accused’s family got angry with this action of victim
and they both started fighting with each other ,the fight
resulted in some injuries to both the accused and victim.

OBSERVATION: I observed that the honourable judge

ordered to discharge all the accused of offense under section
341 of ipc because their was no specific allegations to attract
the section 341 of ipc.
Next date of hearing : 22/12/2021
CASE NO.4

IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIDHI GUPTA ,SHAHDARA DISTRICT,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO: 264/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sh. Amit kumar sharma ……………………………..complainant
Versus
Sh. Rahul kumar…………………………………………..accused

Police station: krishnna nagar

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 2(d) READ WITH CHAPTER XV

C.R.P.C FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF
N.I ACT,1881.

FACTS:
1. The complainant and the accused were very well known
to each other and had a friendly relation between them
 due to this friendship the accused had used to take
money from complainant from time to time.
2. The complainant because of his friendship had given a
sum of rupees 146000/- in total over the time , the
accused himself endorsed that till 24/5/2016 he had
received a sum of rupees 146000/- from complainant.
3. Accused promised the complainant on 24/5/2016 that
he would pay all the amount which he had taken from
the complainant within the period of 6 month.
4. On 24/09/2016 the accused paid a amount of 24000/-
and assured the complainant that he’ll pay the
remaining amount within 3 month.
5. In the last week of December when complainant
contacted the accused to pay the remaining amount the
accused issued him a cheque dated 25/04/2017 of
rupees 120000/- and assured the complainant that the
cheque would be encashed on its presentation.
6. When complainant present the cheque in his bank , the
cheque get dishonoured .
7. After this incident complainant informed the accused
and requests for his money but the accused refuses to
pay .
8. This complaint is filed to punish the accused according
to the law for the offense committed by him.

OBSERVATION: I observed that the honourable judge

ordered the accused to pay all the dues which is 120000/-
together with the cost bearded by the complainant, and also
awarded a sum of rupees 20000 as compensation to the
complainant

CASE NO.5
IN THE COURT OF LD. CMM ,SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO: 345 OF 2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
MR. DIGAMBAR THAKUR ……………………………….COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
MS. SMITA DEVI ……………………………………….ACCUSED
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 REFRENCE WITH SECTION
142 OF N.I ACT,1881
FACTS:
1. The complainant was a wholesale dealer of garments
and was the sole proprietor of the business where as
the accused was a bihar based fabric retailer and he too
was the sole proprietor of the business.
2. There was no problem between the complainant and
accused they used to had a good business relationship.
3. The complainant had a habit to maintain a ledger
account which reflected that the amount of rupees
3,96,417/- was outstanding against the accused .
 4. The complainant requests the accused to clear the
outstanding debt , on the request of complainant the
accused issued him a cheque of amount rupees
3,96,417/- and while issuing the cheque the accused
assured the complainant that on presenting the cheque
in bank it will get honoured.
5. On January 20th 2021 the complainant deposits the
cheque, but the cheque was returned unpaid by the
complainant’s bank because the fund was insufficient.
6. After this incident the complainant contacted the
accused and again requested him to pay the amount
which the accused owe to the complainant .
7. Accused in order to no to pay the debt amount started
not the return the complainant calls and started fleeing
away from the conversation.
8. The complainant served a legal notice as per the
requirement of section 138 of NI act.

OBSERVATION: I observed that the other party was

absent on this particular date of hearing ,the honourable
judge granted the ex parte.
NEXT HEARING: 24/12/2021

CASE NO.6
IN THE COURT OF SHRI. SUSHIL KUMAR,SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

CIVIL SUIT NO. 245/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. MAHESH………………………………………………..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SH.PARVEZ and othrs………………………………………..DEFENDANTS

SUIT FOR POSSESSION , RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT,

DAMAGES/ MESNE PROFITS AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
FACTS:
1. Plaintiff was the owner and the landlord of a property
which he purchased from mr. kallu khan in the year
2016, and the plaintiff got the possession of the
property at the very moment when he finished the
paperwork with mr.kallu khan.
2. After taking the possession of the property , defendant
no.1 approached the plaintiff to take the property on
rent , the plaintiff agreed to let out the property out for
rent and on the request of defendant the rent was fixed
at rupees 5500/- .
3. After taking the property on rent , the defendant no.1
paid the rent upto 2017, and after few months the
defendant started ignoring the plaintiff’s calls
 4. When the plaintiff visited his property in October 2019
he found out that two person namely mr.bhola and
mr.asif were residing there and they told the plaintiff
that mr.kallu khan was the one who lent them the said
property.
5. Plaintiff asked them to vacant the property than
mr.bhola and mr.ashif threatened the plaintiff due to
which the plaintiff register a complaint to police officials.
6. After filing a complaint, the plaintiff tried to trace the
defendant no.1 but due to covid lockdown he failed in
tracing, and again visited his property and found out this
time the defendant 2 was staying there on asking with
whom permission he is staying at complainant property
he replied by the permission of defendant no 1.
7. Defendant no 1 was subletting the property of
complainant with the intention to grab it .
8. After knowing the intentions of the defendant the
complainant terminated the contractual tenancy of the
defendant through the legal notice dated 21/11/2020.
9. This complaint was filed by the plaintiff to get the
possession of his property and all the damages.

OBSERVATION: I observed as it was the first hearing of

the case so honourable judge asked both the parties to tell
their sides of facts and asked advocates to be prepared with
all the evidences and gave the next date for hearing .
Next hearing: 22/01/2022
CASE NO.7
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.

MAINTENANCE PETITION NO.234/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:

SMT. BABITA……………………………………………………. PETITIONER

VERSUS

SH. GAURAV MATHUR……………………………….. RESPONDENT

P.S.: JYOTI NAGAR

PETITION UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. FOR GRANT OF

MAINTENANCE.
FACTS:
1. Brother of the petitioner and the respondent was
workmates and they knew each other from last 10 years
,brother of the petitioner put a proposal of his sister’s
marriage with respondent in front of respondent’s
family and they accept it.
2. The respondent family likes the bride and asked the
brother of petitioner to arrange the things for
 engagement of both the petitioner and respondent and
all the arrangements costed around 200000/- rupees .
3. At the time of marriage the respondent’s brother and
sister-in-law asked the brother of petitioner to throw a
marriage which should be of around 1000000/- rupees
at least, but due to poor financial conditions of
petitioner’s family they weren’t able to do so and spent
only 800000/- rupees on marriage.
4. After the marriage the family of respondent started
behaving in a cruel behavior , the respondent started
beating the petitioner on regular basis.
5. One day when petitioner came back to her matrimonial
home from her brother’s house she found out that her
husband had gave all her belongings to his brother and
her sister-in-law, and when she questioned about the
whereabouts of her belongings he started beating her.
6. And next day her brother-in-law and sister-in-law beat
her and threw her clothes and belonging on roads and
told her to go to her brother’s house.
 7. This application is filed to get maintenance from
respondent because right now she is living with her
brother and her husband had totally abandoned her.

OBSERVATION: I observed that the honourable judge

Ordered the respondent to show the evidences to support
the arguments made by the respondent that is the petitioner
is of a bad character lady that’s why the respondent don’t
want to live with her
Next hearing: 12/10/2021