Internship Report Final

Internship Report by Shagun Bhadana,
BBA LLB Batch of 2015-2020
GURU GOBIND SINGH

INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES
Summer Internship report
Submitted by: Shagun Bhadana

BBA LLB, V Semester
02816503515
1
INDEX
Serial Number CONTENT Page number
1. Introduction 3
2. Report- Week I 4-6
3. Report- Week II 7-9
4. Report- Week III 9-11
5. Report- Week IV 11-12
6. Certificate of Appreciation 13
7. ANNEXURE A 14-16
8. ANNEXURE B 17-20
9. ANNEXURE C 21-23
10. ANNEXURE D 24-28
11. ANNEXURE E 29-32
2
INTRODUCTION
The Summer Internship Programme of University School of Law and

Legal Studies, GGSIPU seeks to promote multi-disciplinary analysis of
the socio-legal problems by designing its course-structure and teaching
methods to realize these objectives. The methods of teaching in the Law
School include lecture discussions, case law analysis, moot court
training, project assignment and placement programmes. In addition, the
School organizes seminars on contemporary legal issues, conducts
clinical courses and trains students in legal research and legal writing.
By the time a student completes the 5-year programme he/she will be
fully equipped with the required theoretical knowledge and practical
experience in the field of law to become a full-fledged responsible
member of the legal profession.
In this compulsory Internship Programme I, Shagun Bhadana a student of V
Semester, BBA LLB interned under Adv. Umakant Kataria, Chamber 4A, Patiala
House Courts, for a period of four weeks in the month of July 2017. This is the
report of the same discussing thoroughly about the experience I gained through this
Summer Internship Programme.
3
WEEK I (1st July 17-7th July 17)
Case: Kundan Mills v. Michelle (Counsel for dendant)

Court: Rohini District Court
Date of hearing: 05/07/2017
The primary fact in issue revolved around territorial jurisdiction since both the
parties resided in Mumbai and the bank through which all the business transactions
took place is located in Delhi; as argued at last date of hearing. At the present date
the counsel for the petitioner was not present and only the junior counsel along
with the party was present. Another date was granted by the hon'ble court.
NDOH: 15/11/17
CASE: State v. Arnab Ganguly

Court: Saket District Court
Date of Hearing: 05/07/17
The brief facts of the case: the defendant, Arnab Ganguly had been arrested under
sections 354C, 375, 376 of IPC as it was alleged by the plaintiff, Kanika. The
defendant Arnab Ganguly and the plaintiff were acquaintances in a MNC in New
Delhi. The former being the boss of the plaintiff. After six months of appointment
the plaintiff's Husband alleged Rape on account of the defendant. It was argued by
the defendant that the two parties to the case were in a romantic affair and hence
the physical intercourse was consensual.
Now, the case was due for the Submission of Evidence and for the same the Cross
examination of the Investigating officer was to be recorded. But due to the absen
ce of the IO the hon'ble court granted another date.
N.D.O.H: 02/08/17
4
Work done at the chamber:

Read The Sunita Bhowmik Case File.
Read previous Case's Written Statements.
Read Draft of Legal Notices.
Case: State v. Rajinder (Counsel for petitioner)

Patiala House Courts.
Date: 06/07/2017
The present case is a dispute of property, first filed in 1960. The parties to which
are the Delhi Development Authority among others over a disputed property
located in the Chankyapuri Area in Delhi.
At the date of hearing: Application for inspection.
N.D.O.H: 14/07/17
CASE: State v. Syed Ali (Counsel for defendant)

Court: Patiala House Courts
In the Court of Ms. Anu Grover

The case revolves around the Kidnapping and abduction of three girls who are
residents of the State of West Bengal. Who were allegedly minor at the time of
Kidnapping and were 'sold off and married' to the defendants. The case was due for
Cross Examination of one Baman, a witness and relative of one of the kidnapped
girls Noor Aalam.
A BRIEF OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF BAMAN:
5
The witness was asked to swear an oath of true admissions followed by a series of
questions from the Counsel of Defendant No. 2. Such as his relation with the
victim, the language being a barrier since the witness only knew Bengali as it was
his mother tongue, henceforth, the father of the victim and brother in law of the
witness was ordered by the court to be the translator. Afterwards, more questions
were asked such as the last time he saw the victim, upon which he informed the
Court that the Girl herself gave him a call and told him that she was married off to
an unknown person but she is not being ill treated or harassed. This was later on
classified as a hearsay evidence and the rest of the information opined as irrelevant
by the Hon'ble Court.
N.D.O.H: 11/07/2017
DOCUMENTS DRAFTED:
After a thorough reading of various legal notices I was asked to draft

one for a new cliemt, under sectiom 148 of the Negotiable
instruments act (ANNEXURE A)
The notice dealt with the non performance of the payment our client
was legally entitled to.
RESEARCH WORK:
To find relevant case laws with respect to recovery of possession in

the Sunita Bhowmik case. Cases dealing with habitual litigants.
Reading of the Arnab ganguly Case.
6
WEEK II (JULY 8TH- JULY 14TH)
Case: Nancy v. Nitin George (Council for defendant)

Court: Rohini District Court.
The facts of the case are such that the parties share a maternal.bond; the plaintiff is
the mother of the defendant who claims to have been cheated by her son that is the
defendant into taking a loan by mortgaging a property in the Plaintiff's name.
The Case was due for submission of the written statement. (SARFESI Act)
N.D.O.H: 14/09/17
CASE: State v. Joginder Rawat (Counsel for defendant)

COURT: Rohini district Court
DATE OF HEARING: 10/07/2017
The matter dealt with illegal accusation of land by the M2K building group, the
date of hearing was due for the Chief Examination of Witness Prakash Rawat, a
resident in the nearby colony.
BRIEF OF THE CHIEF EXAMINATION:
The witness was shown a number of photographs taken of the site of construction.
He agreed to the raility of the images and the construction of the wall by the M2K
building Group, so as to determine the defendants were working under the strict
restrictions and within the boundaries of the land they were entitled to.
N.D.O.H: 15/11/17
CASE: Madan Goyal v. NIL (Counsel for petitoner)

COURT: Mediation Centre, Saket District Court.
7
The case is a Labour's dispute case sent to mediation, that is settlement between the
two parties.
The defendant party was not present for the same hence another date was granted.
Next Date: 23/08/2017
CASE: Ritika Vig v. Deepak Bhatia

COURT: Family Court, Patiala House Courts.
The present case is a domestic dispute between the parties. Where the petetioner
filed for divorce but the court directed a decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights,
instructing and giving both the parties a chance to start a fresh matrimonial bond
and settle the disputes.
I was asked to fill an application for obtaining the Certified Copies of the Cross
Examination dated 12/06/2017.
CASE: Narendra v. Rajkumar

COURT: Karkardooma District Court
This case was an accident Case. Where we are the counsel for defendant, Raj
Kumar. The case is dated back to 2008 involving the accident of one Police
Constable Narendra, the Plaintiff by the vehicle belonging to our client. The case
was due for the final arguments before the hon'ble Court.
It was argued by the Main counsel that the burden of compensation lies on the
insurance Company of the vehicle of their client. Since, its policy indemnifies all
such events and the ignorance on basis of the documents lost is also the matter of
responsibility on the part of the Insurance Company.
N.D.O.H: FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER: 08.08.2017
8
DRAFTING, RESEARCH WORK AND ORS.

Learned to make PFs.
Learned to make a Written Statement.
Made the WS for Gurdev Singh v. mobile sewa Kendra (ANNEXURE B)
Made Legal Notice for Smt. Sunita Duggal, on the same lines as the notice
for Mr. Nawal K Seth.
WEEK III (JULY 15TH- JULY 21ST)
CASE: State v. Mohit and Ors. (Counsel for Defendant no.2)

COURT: Patiala House Courts
DATE OF HEARING: 15.07.2017
The famous case involving the use of unfair means in the ALL INDIA
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL STUDIES. AND RESEARCH CENTRE PRE
MEDTICAL TEST (PMT). This case came into light in the year ____ when the
accused and his accquantainces were arrested in furtherance of the examination
paper illegal leakage and use of unfair means at the time of the examination.
According to the file the very fundamentals of the case involved the accusation of
proof from the accused. Which, according to the law is not enough to establish
such a strong case against the accused.
In furtherance of which,the present date was scheduled for chief examination of
Witness number 7 (name not identified).
Although, the Judge dealing with the case had to go on an emergency leave.
Another date for the same was granted.
N.D.O.H: 16.12.2017
9
CASE: IPL v. Birpal Singh (Council for petetiomer)

The case dealt with the sec. 148 of negotiable instruments act. I.e the bouncing /
non payment of Cheque by the Defendant.
Submission of WS on the behalf of the defendant.
N.D.O.H: 08.12.2017
CASE: HCL v. Jain Pesticides, HCL LEARNING LTD. v. Upendra Jimdal,

The case dealt with the sec. 148 of negotiable instruments act. I.e the bouncing /
non payment of Cheque by the Defendant.
The date was scheduled for the submission of Rejoinder.
N.D.O.H: 25.11.2017
CASE: IPL v. Agriclinic, lIPL v. Mohinder Singh, IPL v. Srerlingeshwera

COURT: Patiala House courts
The above cases are all relevant to s. 148 Negotiable instruments act
Pending for Cross Examination of the Defendants
N.D.O.H: 28.03.2018
10
Research, drafting and ors:

A Case highlighting the upper limit in the Age Determination Test.
Case found: Lal Bahadur v. state Crl.R. 145/2003Decided on 27/07/03
WS Sanjeev Kumar v. HCL (ANNEXURE C)
Filling of PFs
WEEK IV (JULY 22ND- JULY 31ST)
CASE: State v. Vipin Sharma

COURT: Rohini district court
N.D.O.H: 28.02.2018
CASE: BMS Impex Pvt.Ltd. v. Maheshwari Timber

COURT: Saket district court
The case was pending for the hearing of arguments from the petitioners side in this
matter of dispute between the quality of goods supplied and the hence the non
payment.
The case is forwarded for settlement.
N.D.O.H: 21.11.2017
CASE: Sheshnath v. Amit (Council for Petitioner)

COURT: Labors dispute Court
11
The the case was a Labours Dispute between the Association Leader Amit and the
worker of the mill (petetiomer), Sheshnath. The case is out for out of court
settlement
CASE:
COURT:
DATE OF HEARING:
Research, drafting and ors:

WS Gaurav Joshi v. Anjenkya Projects and ors. (ANNEXURE D)
Legal Notice rajesh Ranga (ANNEXURE E)
Filling of Summons
Filling of PFs
Drafting application for waiver of Cost
Drafting for Memorandum of appearance.
12
13
ANNEXURE A
1. OPPOSITE PARTY 1
ADDRESS
2. OPPOSITE PARTY 2
ADDRESS
3. OPPOSITE PARTY 3
ADDRESS
4. OPPOSITE PARTY 4
ADDRESS
Sub: Legal Notice in respect of dishonor of Cheque bearing No. 789656 dated 25.03.2017 amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/-
drawn on Yes Bank, Retail Block, Upper Ground Floor, DLF Cyber City, Tower 8-C Branch, Gurgaon-122002.
Sir,
Under the instructions from and on behalf of my client Mr.PQR S/o Mr.ABC, R/o (ADDRESS), has placed in my hands, one
dishonored cheque bearing No. XXXXX dated 25.03.2017 drawn on (Bank AND ADDRESS, issued in favor of my client against
discharge of your accountability and liability towards my client that is legal in temperament. Cheque Return Memo dated
22.06.2017 of the above mentioned cheque was also handed over to me by my client. The Cheque Return Memo specifically
stated that the above said cheque has been dishonored due to the reason FUNDS INSUFFICIENT. Thus, on behalf of my Client
and under his instructions, I hereby serve upon you with this Legal Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881(as amended up to date), here as under:
1. That my client Mr. ABC S/o Mr. PQR is a bonafide resident of (ADDRESS) and is a reputed and known responsible
citizen.
2. That the representative of you the Noticees approached my client to buy the said commercial space with attractive
schemes to lure my client and my client being an innocent person got entangled in your trap. In the furtherance of
the same you the noticees allotted my client an office space admeasuring in approximate an area of 500 Sq. Ft., office
space No. (ADDRESS) @ Rs. 5000/sq. ft. amounting to Basic Sale Price of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Lac
only).
3. That thereafter my client made the aforesaid purchase by entering into an Agreement to Sell and MoU dated
25.03.2015 and made payment by way of a cheque bearing no. XXXXXX amounting Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
five Lac only) drawn on Punjab National Bank.
4. That thereafter my client tried to contact you the noticee to get update on the said commercial space but every time
the Authorized Signatory Mr. XYZ avoided the telephonic calls and physical meetings with my client on one or other
pretext on several occasions.
5. That my client requested you the noticee to execute the documents as mentioned above qua the said office space in
the name of my client but you the noticee engraved by malafide intentions failed to address the same.
6. That as per clause 6 of the Agreement to Sell and MoU dated 25.03.2015 you the notice initiated the re-payment of
the said amount i.e. Rs. 25,00,000/- and issued two PDC in favor of my client in furtherance of the same. Details of
which are as under:
(DETAILS OF THE CHEQUE)
14
7. That upon receipt of the above said cheque bearing no. XXXXXX amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the
consideration amount against the said buyback payment of the said office/commercial space allotted by you the
noticee in favour of my client, he got to know about the said cheque stated to be as barred which was hence
subjected to expire/cross the three months limit.
8. That my client being a kind and innocent person has again approached you the noticee and gave the information qua
the debarred status of the above mentioned cheque and again requested you to refund his hard earned money back
which was paid to you by cheque in consideration of the said commercial/office space otherwise my client would not
be left with any other option but to take appropriate and necessary legal action against you the noticee
9. That on this you the notice apologized to my client and requested not to initiate any legal proceedings and promised
to clear the said amount due towards my client and my client being kind hearted gave one more chance regarding the
clearance of the outstanding dues of you the noticees.
10. That on this pretext you the Noticee assured my client qua the clearance of the other cheque, the same to be bearing
no. XXXXXX dated 25.03.2017 amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- drawn on (ADDRESS OF THE BANK)
11. That my client as per your assurances and instructions, has presented the said cheque with its banker for encashment
but, to the utter surprise of my Client, the same was returned unpaid by its banker with the remarks Funds
Insufficient vide a return memo dated 22.06.2017 which speaks volumes in regard to your dishonest and fraudulent
intention towards discharge of your liability to our Client
12. That even after such misconduct of you the noticee my client has continuously tried to contact you for the repayment
of the due amount but you being dishonest in nature kept avoiding my client and no payment has been made by you
the noticee in furtherance of the buying back the said property/office space. The status of the same property/office
space still being uncertain and at last my client was left with no option but to seek legal redress.
13. That from the above factual matrix it has now become absolutely clear that you, the noticee had intentionally and
dishonestly deliberated the above said cheques to get dishonored as even after several and repetitive telephonic
conversations you have not yet paid the cheque amounts; that is Rs. 5,00,000/- + Rs. 20,00,000/- amounting to be Rs.
25,00,000/- and you the Noticee kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other even after giving repeated
assurances to the representatives of my client that you the Noticee will soon repay the said amount. My client
believing and acting on the assurances of you the noticee continued to be patient.
14. That you have made yourself liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act under which
also you are liable for prosecution and sentence for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may
extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both.
15. That even otherwise, in addition to the above, you have by your above conduct also committed the offence of
Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating on my Client, which are punishable Under Sections 406 & 420 of Indian Penal
code respectively.
Thus in the conspectus of circumstances delineated hereinabove, I, the undersigned hereby on behalf of my Client, serve upon
you the present Legal Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and other relevant provisions of law to call
upon you to make the payment in lieu of above mentioned Cheques within fifteen (15) Clear days of the receipt of the present
Legal Notice, failing which my Client shall be constrained to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against you, as prescribed in
law at proper and competent Court of Law including filing the Complaint to the competent Police Station without any further
15
intimation to you, entirely at your risk, responsibility, costs and consequences, whereby you may be punished by imprisonment
for the term of two years and with fine which may be to the extent of twice the amount of the cheque or both.
I further call upon you to make the payments of my legal fees of Rs. 11000/- charged to my client, for the service of present
legal notice in addition to outstanding amount/interest that has been claimed as above.
A Copy of this notice is retained with us for future reference.
UMAKANT KATARIA
Advocate
16
ANNEXURE B
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
NEW DELHI
Case No. 181of 2016
IN THE MATTER OF:

Gurdev Singh ....Complainant
Versus
Mobile Sewa Kendra & Ors. ..Opp. Parties/Respondent
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2
The opposite party most respectfully submits the following reply to the complaint filed by the complainant:
1. At the outset it is submitted that all the averments and contentions made by the Complainant is his
Complaint, under reply, if not specifically replied to herein, be deemed to have been denied and specifically
traversed.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
I. That the Respondent no. 2 is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian
Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at (ADDRESS)
II. That the present Written Statement is being filed by Sh. ABC, Authorized Representative of the
Respondent Company who has been duly authorized to contest the present complaint on behalf of
Respondent no.2 company and thus empowered, amongst others, to sign and file this Reply.
Copy of Power of Attorney issued by OP no. 2 in favour of Sh.ABC is annexed herewith as

Annexure XX
III. That the present complaint of the Complainant is false, frivolous, baseless and malafide as O.P no.2
always provided best of its services to the Complainant and the faulty keypad, speaker, charging and
other parts as complained by the complainant was checked within reasonable time. O.P no.2 was
never been careless and negligent on its part. The same has been filed with a view to harm and harass
the Respondent no.2.
IV. That at the threshold, the Respondent no.2 humbly states and submits that the present complaint is
wholly misconceived, prima facie proves the malafide intentions and bad conduct of the Complainant
17
and thus unsustainable in law as well as on facts. O.P no.2 has properly tested the faulty keypad,
speaker, charging and other parts as complained by the complainant of the said handset within
reasonable time and tried their best to resolve all the issues for the satisfaction of the complainant.
But, the invoice produced by the Complainant was an offline invoice which is not authentic and true to
be covered under the warranty terms of the Manufacturer Company. Hence, the present complaint is
a gross abuse of the process of this Honble Forum as the Complainant is guilty of suppressing,
concoctin
V. g and circumventing material facts and hence the present consumer complaint of the Complainant is
liable to be dismissed as such.
VI. That the present complaint filed by the Complainant is bereft of any merit, and the same deserves to
be dismissed in limine.
VII. That the Respondent No. 2 is not concerned with the replacement of the product or refund of money
as O.P no.2 is only a service centre and not the manufacturer of the product.
VIII. That the present complaint filed by the Complainant is misconceived, prima facie proves the malafide
intentions of the Complainant. The Complainant is guilty of suppressing, concocting and circumventing
material facts and hence the present consumer complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed
as such.
IX. It is submitted that the complainant has made respondent no.2 as a party to the present complaint
with intention to gain illegal money.
PARA WISE REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT:
1. That the contents of para no.1 of the complaint are matter of record and not within the knowledge of OP
no.1 & 2 and hence, OP No. 1 & 2 are not answerable to the same and needs no comments.
18
2. That the content of Para no.2 so as related to the copy of retail invoice of the subject disputed product is a
matter of fact/record and hence needs no justification. Further the complaint is wrong and denied to the
extent as the O.P No.1 never assured replacement of the HCL dual sim core 3G calling tablet to the
Complainant. OP No.1 covered 1 year warranty of the said tablet with the assurance that if any problem
occurred in the aforesaid product, same will be solved through O.P. No.2 who is authorized service centre
of O.P. No. 1.
3. That the contents of para no.3 of the complaint are admitted to the extent that the respondent no.2 tested
the defects of the aforesaid product and sought reasonable time to repair the same, in pursuance to which
the complainant was given an appropriate job sheet. It is further pertinent to add that O.P. No.1 is not
liable for any kind of assurance regarding solution of inconvenience in the aforesaid product given by OP
No.3 over E mails.
4. That the contents of para no.4 is false and denied as the O.P no.2 has provided its best service to the
Complainant despite difficulty in handing such critical issue pertinent in aforesaid product. Also, in the
benefit of complainant, OP No. 2 gave an offer for to the Complainant for replacement of aforesaid
product.
5. That the 4
6. contents of para no.5 of the complaint are wrong and denied. OP No. 2 offered the replacement of the
product within reasonable time.
7. That the contents of para no. 6 &7 are matter of record which is not within the knowledge of O.P no.2 and
needs no reply.
8. That the contents of para 8 is legal and O.P no.2 needs no comments.
ADDITIONAL PLEAS:
1. That the O.P no.2 got nothing related to the expert report with regard to alleged product.
2. That there is no service of any notice or complaint served upon the answering O.P No.2. Hence the
complaint is wholly groundless and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
19
3. That O.P no.2 is not liable to compensate for the handset as O.P no.2 was always helpful and considerate.
Neither the O.P no. 2 is responsible to replace any such product manufactured by Redmi as O.P no.2 is only
concerned with the service of the defects in handsets.
4. That the allegations of defect, negligence and deficiency in service are wholly groundless, false and
untenable in law besides being extraneous and irrelevant as O.P no.2 is not liable to compensate in any
case which shows that the present complaint is flagrant abuse of process of law to harass O.P No.2 and
complainant only wants to gain money through this litigation..
Respondent No.2
Through:
UMAKANT kATARIA
Counsel for O.P No.2
VERIFICATION:
That the contents of para no.1 to 07 are true to my personal knowledge and belief. No part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Signed and Verified at XX on XX ,2017.
Deponent
20
ANNEXURE C
SPEED POST/POD
Dated: __th July, 2017
1. Opposite Part 1
Address
2. Opposite Part 2
Address
3.
Sub: Legal Notice in respect of failure to perform your duties and pay the consideration amount in favor of my
client against discharge of your accountability and liability towards my client that is legal in temperament.
Sir,
Under the instructions from and on behalf of my client Smt. Sunita Duggal W/o Sh. PQR , R/o (ADDRESS), I hereby
serve upon you with this Legal Notice under Section(s) 406, 420, 120 B, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1880, (as amended up to date), here as under:
1. That my client Smt. Sunita Duggal W/o Sh. Rajesh Duggal, is a bonafide resident of House no. 41P, Sector-
66, Gurgaon, and is a reputed and law abiding citizen.
2. That representative of you the Noticees approached my client to buy a commercial space with attractive
schemes to lure my client. My client being an innocent person got entangled in your trap and in good faith
legally purchased from you the noticees a piece of property/office space admeasuring approximately 500
sq.ft at no (ADDRESS) in the month of July 2015.
3. That thereafter you the noticees being grossly negligent and without any intimation to my client lent out
the whole third floor of the Universal Business Park, admeasuring about 1600 sq.ft in area which was
inclusive of the property/office space owned by my client to XYZ Pvt. Ltd @ Rs. 75 per sq.ft. for 9 years
with a lock-in period of four years and one month.
4. That the above stated agreement qua the renting/leasing of the said property/office space was in
between you the noticees and the tenant i.e Jaarvis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and my client was not made a
21
party to the said agreement irrespective of the fact that my client is the owner of a part of the rented
property by law.
5. That even after such gross misconduct by you the noticees my client being a kind hearted person humbly
approached and intimated you the noticees about the same and you the noticees apologized in light of
the matter. Furthermore you agreed upon paying the monthly rent for the part of the property owned by
my client which was agreed upon to be Rs. 37500/- per month exclusive of TDS.
6. That you the noticees showed your true colours and never paid the agreed upon amount on time as the
rent for the said property owned by my client. Moreover, to downright infringement of conduct there has
been no payment in the last one year by you the noticees against discharge of your accountability and
liability towards my client.
7. That my client being a kind and innocent person has time and again approached you the noticees and
gave the information qua the said intentional negligence on the part of you the notices and again
requested you to clear the outstanding amount which you the noticees are legally entitled towards to pay
and otherwise my client would not be left with any other option but to take appropriate and necessary
legal action against you the noticees.
8. That on this you the notice again apologized to my client and requested not to initiate any legal
proceedings and promised to clear the said dues towards my client and my client being kind hearted gave
one more chance regarding the clearance of the outstanding dues of you the noticees.
9. That you the noticees have made baseless excuses and pretexts about the tenant vacating the said
property/office space even when the lock-in period has still not exhausted. Furthermore, on intimations
regarding the same and qua the recovery done thereafter you the noticees have kept silent on the said
pretext till date only to give more hollow assurances.
10. That even after the countless assurances you the noticees have failed to clear out any dues you owe to my
client and you being dishonest kept avoiding the several attempts made by my client for a personal
meeting and/or telephonic conversations which speaks volumes in regard to your dishonest and
fraudulent intention towards discharge of your liability to my Client.
22
11. That from the above factual matrix it has now become absolutely clear that you the noticees had
intentionally and dishonestly deliberated the above said failure to clear out the amount due by you the
noticees and kept on delaying the matter on one bogus pretext or the other even after giving repeated
assurances to the representatives of my client that you the Noticee will soon repay the said amou
12. nt. My client believing and acting on the assurances of you the noticee continued to be patient.
13. That you have made yourself liable for prosecution under Section(s) 406, 420, 120 B, 467, 468, 471 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code (as amended up to date) under which also you are liable for prosecution and
sentence for a term which may extend
Thus in the conspectus of circumstances delineated hereinabove, I, the undersigned hereby on behalf of my Client,
serve upon you the present Legal Notice under Section(s) 420, 120 II, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (as
amended up to date) and other relevant provisions of law to call upon you to make the payment in lieu of above
mentioned ____ within fifteen (15) Clear days of the receipt of the present Legal Notice, failing which my Client
shall be constrained to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against you, as prescribed in law at proper and
competent Court of Law including filing the Complaint to the competent Police Station without any further
intimation to you, entirely at your risk, responsibility, costs and consequences, whereby you may be punished by
imprisonment for the term of two years and with fine which may be to the extent of twice the amount of the
cheque or both.
I further call upon you to make the payments of my legal fees of Rs. 11000/- charged to my client, for the service of
present legal notice in addition to outstanding amount/interest that has been claimed as above.
A Copy of this notice is retained with us for future reference.
UMAKANT KATARIA
Advocate
23
ANNEXURE D
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM:

NEW DELHI
Case No. 48of 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:

Gaurav Joshi .. Complainant
Versus
E-Mobile, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project &Ors. ..Opp. Parties/Respondent
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2

The opposite party most respectfully submits the following reply to the complaint filed by the complainant:
1. At the outset it is submitted that all the averments and contentions made by the Complainant is his Complaint,
under reply, if not specifically replied to herein, be deemed to have been denied and specifically traversed.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
I. That the Respondent no. 2 is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian
Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at 806, Sidhartha, 96 Nehru Place, New Delhi-
110019.
II. That the present Written Statement is being filed by Sh. Prabhakar Tiwari, Authorized Representative
of the Respondent Company who has been duly authorized to contest the present complaint on behalf
of Respondent no.2 company and thus empowered, amongst others, to sign and file this Reply.
III. That the present complaint of the Complainant is false, frivolous, baseless and malafide pertaining to
O.P no.2 as O.P no. 2 always provided best of its services to the Complainant and the fault/ defect was
tested then and there only and the defects in the handset was found as TP not working which do not
falls under the warranty conditions of the XIAOMI Mobiles and the same was conveyed to the
Complainant on the same date of submission of the said handset i.e. on 10.11.2016. O.P no.2 was
never careless and negligent on its part. The same has been filed with a view to harm and harass the
Respondent no.2. The same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
24
IV. That the Complainant has not served any notice to O.P no.2. Therefore, the present Complaint is a
gross abuse to process of law and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
V. That at the threshold, the Opposite Party no.2 humbly states and submits that the present complaint is
wholly misconceived, prima facie proves the malafide intentions and bad conduct of the Complainant
and thus unsustainable in law as well as on facts. The Complainant never approached the O.P no.2 on
02.11.2016 and framed fictitious story and no such jobsheet was issued by O.P no.2 on 02.11.2016.
Hence, the present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of this Honble Forum as the Complainant
is guilty of suppressing, concocting and circumventing material facts and hence the present consumer
complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed as such.
VI. That the present complaint filed by the Complainant is bereft of any merit, and the same deserves to
be dismissed in limine.
VII. That the Respondent No. 2 is not concerned with the replacement of the product or refund of money
as O.P no.2 is only a service centre and not the manufacturer/ seller of the product. Also, the defects in
the handset as complained by the Complainant do not fall under the warranty terms of O.P no.2.
VIII. That the present complaint filed by the Complainant is misconceived, prima facie proves the malafide
intentions of the Complainant. The Complainant is guilty of suppressing, concocting and circumventing
material facts and hence the present consumer complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed
as such.
IX. It is submitted that the complainant has made respondent no.2 as a party to the present complaint
with intention to gain illegal money.
PARA WISE REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT:
1. That contents of para 1 are matter of fact/ record and the Complainant had purchased the said handset
from O.P No.1 and therefore O.P no.2 is not answerable to the same. Hence need no comments.
2. That contents of para 3 is a matter of record. Hence need no comments.
25
3. That contents of para 4 & 5 are wrong and vehemently denied entirely. It is submitted that the
complainant has never reported such problem with the O.P. no. 2 and the contents under reply are not
admitted as the Complainant never approached O.P no.2 on 02.11.2016 with any such fault/ defect in
the handset in question and the same is just a concocted and fictitious story.
4. That the averments made in para 6 of the complaint are wrong and denied except the matter of
fact/record as the O.P no.2 has provided its best service to the complainant and never been casual in its
services. It is submitted that the complainant visited the O.P. no. 2 for the first time on 10.11.2016
raising some issues qua touch pad saying that the same was not working properly. On the said
complaint, the O.P. no. 2 inspected the said handset properly within reasonable time and the reported
problem/ fault in the said handset and accordingly the same was conveyed to the Complainant.
5. That the contents of para 7 of the complaint are wrong and vehemently denied and not admitted. The
O.P. no. 2 has never demanded Rs. 4800/- from the Complainant rather after the proper inspection of
the handset in question as per the request of complainant, the O.P. no.2 intimated the complainant that
the reported problem does not covered under the warranty terms and the same is chargeable with sum
Rs. 3773/- which is clearly mentioned in the inspection sheet dated 10.11.2016 (copy given to the
complainant there and then) and was in the knowledge of the Complainant. The contention in the
corresponding para in respect of the demand of Rs.4800/- for repair of the said handset is bogus and a
fictitious story made by the Complainant to gain illegal money through this litigation.
6. That the content of para 8 is wrong and denied as the fault/ problem in the said handset was prevailing
at the time when the Complainant approached O.P no.2. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to
inspect the said handset properly, O.P no.2 has to open the handset and found the problem as TP not
working.
7. That the contents of para 9 is strictly denied and not admitted as O.P no.2 never demanded a sum of Rs.
4800/- from the Complainant and the amount so chargeable for the repair of the said handset is Rs.
3773/- which was mentioned in the inspection sheet and the same was within the knowledge of the
Complainant.
8. That the each and every averment of para 10 is wrong and denied. The O.P no.2 tried its best to satisfy
the Complainant but the Complainant never responded.
26
9. That the contents of Para 11 are wrong and denied as O.P no.2 has never been served with any legal
notice as alleged by the complainant under the corresponding para of his complaint..
10. In reply to contents of para 12 it is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from
the O.P no.2 as OP no.2 has always ensured the complainants satisfaction. Moreover the O.P no.2 is
not negligent on its part as the Complainant was not ready to pay the amount of Rs. 3773/- against the
repair of the said handset. It is further submitted here that O.P no. 2 is not responsible for the
replacement of the said handset as O.P no.2 is not the manufacturer of the product. In view of the same
O.P no.2 is not liable to compensate and hence the complainant only intends to gain money through
this litigation.
11. Contents of para 13 are wrong, denied and baseless as O.P no.2 always ensures to satisfy the
Complainant and the said handset was inspected then and there only. The complainant was aware of
the defect in the said handset and it was in the knowledge of the Complainant that the problem
reported does not fall under the warranty terms and is chargeable. It is pertinent to mention here that
the contention made in the corresponding para is false as Complainant himself seeks time as he wanted
to confirm with his parents whether he wants to get the handset repaired or not.
12. That the contents of para 14 are matter of record and hence needs no reply.
13. The contents of the prayer clause is specifically denied as the Complainant has demanded refund of
cost of the handset in question or the replacement of the handset for which O.P no.2 is not liable or
responsible. The O.P no.2 is not concerned with any replacement or refund of money as O.P no.2 is only
a service centre and not the manufacturer of the handset. It is further submitted that the said handset
is lying with the service centre of O.P no.2 as the Complainant never responded as to if he wants the
handset to get it repaired or not. Moreover the OP no. 2 has quoted a legally chargeable amount as the
defect reported do not fall under the warranty terms of XIAOMI. It is further submitted that the
Complainant has demanded compensation of sum of Rs. 30,000/- to which the O.P. no.2 is not liable to
pay. It only demonstrates that the intention of the Complainant is to extract money through this
unjustified litigation. Therefore in view of the abovementioned paras the present complaint against the
O.P. no. 2 deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.
ADDITIONAL PLEAS:
27
i. That the O.P no.2 got nothing related to the expert report with regard to alleged product.
ii. That there is no service of any notice or complaint served upon the answering O.P No.2. Hence
the complaint is wholly groundless and vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
iii. That O.P no.2 has provided its best service to the Complainant and the after due process and
testing of the handset, the Complainant was made clear about the defects in the said handset
and was asked to revert back as soon as possible but the Complainant never responded.
iv. That O.P no.2 is not liable to compensate for the handset as O.P no.2 was always helpful and
considerate. Neither the O.P no. 2 is responsible to replace any such product manufactured as
O.P no.2 is only concerned with the service of the handsets.
v. That the allegations of defect, negligence and deficiency in service are wholly groundless, false
and untenable in law besides being extraneous and irrelevant as O.P no.2 is not liable to
compensate in any case which shows that the present complaint is flagrant abuse of process of
law to harass O.P No.2 and complainant only wants to gain money through this litigation.
UMAKANT KATARIA
PARSHANT SETHI
Counsels for O.P. no. 2
VERIFICATION:
That the contents of para no.1 to 14 are true to my personal knowledge and belief. No part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Signed and Verified at on ,2017.
Deponent
28
ANNEXURE E
1. Opposite party 1.
Address
Sir/Madam,
RE: LEGAL NOTICE ON BEHALF OF MR. RAJESH RANGA IN LUE OF DELAY IN POSSESSION.
Upon the prior instructions on behalf of my client Mr. Rajesh Ranga, S/o Sh. Inder Singh Ranga,
R/o(ADDRESS), I hereby serve upon you the following notice:-
1. That my client had booked a housing unit in your Housing society namely, M/s XYZ Officer City, a
housing society in itself with an area of approx. 980 Sq.ft , Unit No.(ADDRESS), the price of the same
amounting to be Rs. 24,79,400/- vide the booking application dated 19.03.2012.
2. That on the confirmation of the said application and as per the Construction Linked Payment Plan,
my client initiated the payment of the booking amount of Rs. 50,000/- for the booking of the said
housing unit vide cheque bearing no. XXXXX drawn on (Bank) dated XXX and of Rs. 18,42,386/- vide
Cheque bearing no. XXX drawn (bank, ADDRESS) dated 24.05.2012.
3. That after the payment of the said booking amount an Allotment Letter was signed by you the noticee
and my client dated 10.04.2012. The same having all the agreed upon terms and conditions regarding
this purchase of the Housing Unit in your Company's Housing society.
4. That in the aforementioned Allotment Letter duly signed by you the Noticee it is clearly mentioned
and agreed upon by you the noticee as well as my client that the possession of the Unit will be given
within twenty four months from the date of Agreement of the Flat subject to the receipt of the entire
Basic Price, other Charges, registration charges and any other charges asmay be intimated by the
company.
5. That my client being an innocent person paid you the below mentioned amount as and when
demanded by you:
S.NO RECIEPT NO. RECIEPT DATE MODE BANK AMOUNT (Rs.)

1 XXX 31.03.2012 Cheque. State Bank 50,000/-
29
of India
2 XXX 28.05.2012 Cheque. Syndicate 12,89,614/-
Bank
3 XXX 06.03.2012 Cheque Syndicate 322,383/-
Bank
Bank
Bank
6 19.12.2013 Cheque Syndicate 161,191/-
Bank
Bank
Bank
Bank
Bank
Bank
TOTAL Rs. 36,44,504/-
6. That all the payments including but not limited to the installments have been made by my client as
specified in GENERAL TERMS AND AGREEMENT.
7. That my client being an innocent person paid you a total amount of Rs. 37,41,794/- (including service
tax) from her husbands hard earned money as and when demanded by you and you by raising false
demands kept on asking money from the allottees like my client without even making any
development both external as well as internal as promised by you.
8. That as per the assurances/commitments given at your end at the time of application/booking, you
were under legal obligation to offer the possession of the flat within 36 months from the date of
booking (i.e. from 04.05.2011) but you failed to fulfill your obligation and commitments.
9. That due to your failure my client suffered heavy monetary losses as she booked the present flat to
fulfill the needs of her son and due to your said failure her son had to reside on rent by paying huge
rent. But when it comes to your customers, you impose heavy penalty on your customers on failure of
their fulfillment of obligations and not vice-versa.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that on a small delay of few days on my clients part you have charged
a huge penalty @ 18% interest p.a. on the due amount of a single installment which was not even
intentional at all and accordingly my client paid a sum of Rs. 65,000/- towards the said penalty and
you did not pay any heed on my clients request qua waiving of the penalty amount. But on the other
30
hand you the noticees made a huge delay of about 30 months in offering possession to my client and
did not pay even a single penny on the default made by you.
11. That thereafter my client tried to contact you the noticee to get update of the flat/project but every
time the representative of you the noticee avoided the telephonic calls and physical meetings of my
client on one or other pretext.
12. That you the noticee kept my client in dark and accepted all the payment made by my client and you
failed to deliver the possession of the flat on time i.e. within 36 months from the date of booking of
the flat in question as promised by you the noticees.
13. That my client without any delay, made the total payment in consideration of the flat/apartment in
question well within time as and when demanded. On 08.08.2016 your representative gave in
writing that the Company (i.e. you the noticee) has received full & final payment towards the said flat
in your project and a possession letter bearing no. PT/T16-1003 dated 08.08.2016 was also issued to
my client in respect of the said flat.
14. That my client after receiving the letter for possession visited the flat in question and was astonished
to see the flaws and imperfections in the flat. The interior of the said flat was full of constructional
defects such as paint spots on wooden flooring, gap in the wooden flooring of the master bedroom,
mismatching of tiles in the kitchen and balcony, improper alignment of door frames and shower etc.
My client was shocked to inspect the said flat properly as the walls of rooms and balcony were
uneven and had spots of mold. The quality of material used is not standardized and off poor quality.
You the noticees failed to meet the expectations of my client as promised by you for which she has
paid you her husbands hard earned money.
15. That you the noticees have used inferior quality of building material which is again contrary to your
promises and specifications specified in Schedule IV of the agreement. Use of low quality material
such as cements, steel and other building material and flaws in the design of the said constructed flat
may cause damage to person or property resulting in financial and physical harm to the allottee. This
has made my client realize that the money she paid to buy the said flat in your project was a sheer
waste and all the payments she made was for a flat which is full of constructional defects and flaws.
16. That on 21.09.2016 your representatives issued a Car Parking Letter in respect of confirmation of
reserved car parking slot bearing no. T16/LB/C-63 in Lower Basement but till date the said slot in
the lower basement is not yet ready to be used to park the cars. In this connection my client and her
representatives visited your office several times but every visit seems to have gone in vain. The
31
concerned persons/executives at the office of you the noticees have made lame excuses and have
neither given any concrete deadline nor information about the same.
17. That my client is being subjected to unnecessary delay and mental agony, my client had waited for
about 30 months to get the possession of the said flat, and after getting the possession of the said flat
my client again approached you the noticees and objected to obtain the possession of the said flat but
the representatives of the noticees threatened that if my client will not take the possession
then the amount paid by my client will be forfeited and nothing will be refunded. Having
no other option my client accepted the possession and executed the registry of the said
flat and have to move in the said flat which is full of flaws and constructional defects. Moreover,
after few days of residing in the flat my client faced another constructional defect as there were
cracks in the wooden door frame as well.
18. Despite making full payment with excess and illegal interest imposed by you the noticee as
mentioned above, you have failed to be on your own words/promises. Such practices are highly
unfair and restrictive trade practices and reflects you unprofessional behavior. You have charged
excess interest from my client on account of a very small delayed payment but never paid any heed of
on account of delay of 30 months on your part in offering the possession of the said flat. This
approach of yours shows complete lack of professionalism and autocratic functioning of your
company.
19. That you the noticees are thus liable to pay alongwith an interest amount of Rs. 13,02,724.08 @ 18%
p.a. towards the delay made by you the noticees in giving the possession of the said flat and a sum of
Rs. 5,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony.
You are thereby requested to remit the said amount to my client at the earliest but not later than 15 days from
date of receipt of this notice, failing which I have clear instructions from my client to initiate appropriate civil
and criminal proceedings against you, for misrepresentation, fraud, cheating and misappropriation of amount
deposited by my client, and you would be solely responsible for all the consequences emanating therefrom.
You are also liable to pay Rs 25000/- towards charges for the present notice.
Copy retained.
Umakant Kataria, Adv.
32

Internship Report Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Internship Report by Shagun Bhadana,

BBA LLB Batch of 2015-2020

GURU GOBIND SINGH

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

Summer Internship report

Submitted by: Shagun Bhadana

The Summer Internship Programme of University School of Law and

WEEK I (1st July 17-7th July 17)

Case: Kundan Mills v. Michelle (Counsel for dendant)

CASE: State v. Arnab Ganguly

Work done at the chamber:

Case: State v. Rajinder (Counsel for petitioner)

CASE: State v. Syed Ali (Counsel for defendant)

In the Court of Ms. Anu Grover

After a thorough reading of various legal notices I was asked to draft

To find relevant case laws with respect to recovery of possession in

WEEK II (JULY 8TH- JULY 14TH)

Case: Nancy v. Nitin George (Council for defendant)

CASE: State v. Joginder Rawat (Counsel for defendant)

CASE: Madan Goyal v. NIL (Counsel for petitoner)

CASE: Ritika Vig v. Deepak Bhatia

CASE: Narendra v. Rajkumar

DRAFTING, RESEARCH WORK AND ORS.

WEEK III (JULY 15TH- JULY 21ST)

CASE: State v. Mohit and Ors. (Counsel for Defendant no.2)

CASE: IPL v. Birpal Singh (Council for petetiomer)

CASE: HCL v. Jain Pesticides, HCL LEARNING LTD. v. Upendra Jimdal,

CASE: IPL v. Agriclinic, lIPL v. Mohinder Singh, IPL v. Srerlingeshwera

Research, drafting and ors:

WEEK IV (JULY 22ND- JULY 31ST)

CASE: State v. Vipin Sharma

CASE: BMS Impex Pvt.Ltd. v. Maheshwari Timber

CASE: Sheshnath v. Amit (Council for Petitioner)

DATE OF HEARING: 26.07.2017

Research, drafting and ors:

A Copy of this notice is retained with us for future reference.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mobile Sewa Kendra & Ors. ..Opp. Parties/Respondent

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2

Copy of Power of Attorney issued by OP no. 2 in favour of Sh.ABC is annexed herewith as

PARA WISE REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT:

Signed and Verified at XX on XX ,2017.

Dated: __th July, 2017

A Copy of this notice is retained with us for future reference.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM:

IN THE MATTER OF:

E-Mobile, Anjaneya Infrastructure Project &Ors. ..Opp. Parties/Respondent

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2

PARA WISE REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT:

2. That contents of para 3 is a matter of record. Hence need no comments.

O.P. no. 2 deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.

Signed and Verified at on ,2017.

S.NO RECIEPT NO. RECIEPT DATE MODE BANK AMOUNT (Rs.)

Umakant Kataria, Adv.

You might also like