Internship Diary - Winter Break (Dec-2018) Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli

Internship Diary – Winter Break (Dec-2018)
Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli
Under the guidance of Mr.V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,

Advocate at Supreme Court of India,
For the duration 2/12/18 – 25/12/18
Submitted by
N.Bavithran
5rd Year, B.COM. LL. B (Hons.)
BC0140018
TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL
TIRUCHIRAPPALLI
INTERNSHIP DIARY
Name: N.BAVITHRAN Reg. No: BC0140018
Date: 18/02/19
Year of study: V year
Internship type: SupremeCourt
Organization’s Name: V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, Advocate Supreme Court of India
Tel.:
Contact person in organization: 9842290385
Tel.: e-mail:
Period of Internship: 2/12/18 – 25/12/18
Internship Approved/Internship NOT Approved:
Internal supervisor’s signature: Date:
External supervisor certificate submitted
Internship diary submitted
Date: 2nd -3rd December 2018

 I was introduced to the work of interns in the law office and was told about the types of
cases the office handles.
 I was taught how to do a research work on the cases using the books, journals at the
office library
Date: 4th-5th December 2018
I was directed to go to the Supreme Court and watch the proceedings on daily basis and
learn the process and procedure of a trial and to also given opportunity to see the major cases.
 Had a visit to various parts in the court, also the office where cases get registered and the
documents needed to be submitted for getting it done.
The case file on being presented in a counter is provided with a temporary number (if the
beta, stamp, and other court fee are being paid), after temporary numbering it is moved to
another desk for correction, this process of correction is a week-long process where if
there is correction the advocate is being and the file will be returned. Until there is no
correction the file will be returned and had to be resubmitted (unlike Supreme court,
where new filing is in a different place and the submission of the corrected copy will be
in a different section, in High court both the new and the corrected submission are in the
same section. After correction the file is being sent to another desk where the file is
numbered and then the file in the last desk is determined to which judge that particular
matter shall be listed will be decided.
Date: 6th December 2018
 Court proceedings till 4:30 case not heard upon

 I got the opportunity to see the argument son 18 MLA disqualification case
 Had to enquire the case statue and the date of next hearing in various courts, had to
enquire as to the status of the case, when it is being listed for the next hearing, what judge
had issued as an interim order if any.
 Court visit: visited Court Hall no. 12. Where 2 judgments where been passed.
I. NRI divorce case.
II. Land ceiling
Listened arguments in both the case where in case of the first case the judge instructed as to
produce our client in the court trial live broadcasting. The second case was in regard to where the
judge ordered the presence of the accused and explanation for his absence, and that medical
condition may get relaxation in sentence but has to get punished for the deed done.
 Miscellaneous days in supreme court so students are notallowed, even so had to verify
case status and next date of hearing, and the state of a reserved judgment
 I was advised to read about the law commission’s recommendation on euthanasia
Obviously, the first thing

that is to be declared is
that every ‘competent
patient’,
who is suffering from
terminal illness has a
right to refuse medical
treatment (as
defined i.e. including
artificial nutrition and
respiration) or the
starting or
continuation of such
treatment which has
already been started. If
such infor Obviously, the first thing that is to be declared is that every
‘competent patient’, who is suffering from terminal illness has a right to refuse medical treatment
(as defined i.e. including artificial nutrition and respiration) or the starting or continuation of
such treatment which has already been started. If such informed decision is taken by the
competent patient, it is binding on the doctor. At the same time, the doctor must be satisfied that
the decision is made by a competent patient and that it is an informed decision. Such informed
decision must be one taken by the competent patient independently, all by himself i.e. without
undue pressure or influence from others. It must also be made clear that the doctor,
notwithstanding the withholding or withdrawal of treatment, is entitled to administer palliative
care i.e. to relieve pain or suffering or discomfort or emotional and psychological suffering to the
incompetent patient (who is conscious) and also to the competent patient who has refused
medical treatment.
1.We propose to provide that the doctor shall not withhold or withdraw treatment unless he has
obtained opinion of a body of three expert medical practitioners from a panel prepared by high
ranking Authority. We also propose another important caution, namely, that the decision to
withhold or withdraw must be based on guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India as to
the circumstances under which medical treatment in regard to the particular illness or disease,
could be withdrawn or withheld. In addition, it is proposed that, in the case of competent as well
as incompetent patients, a Register must be maintained by doctors who propose withholding or
withdrawing treatment. The decision as well as the decision-making process must be noted in the
Register. The Register to be maintained by the doctor must contain the reasons as to why the
doctor thinks the patient is competent or incompetent, as to why he thinks that the patient’s
decision in an informed decision or not, as to the view of the experts the doctor has consulted in
the case of incompetent patients and competent patients who have not taken an informed
decision, what is in their best interests, the name, sex, age etc. of the patient. He must keep the
identity of the patient and other particulars confidential. Once the above Register is duly
maintained, the doctor must inform the patient (if he is conscious), or his or her parents or
relatives before withdrawing or withholding medical treatment. If the above procedures are
followed, the medical practitioner can withhold or withdraw medical treatment to a terminally ill
patient. Otherwise, he cannot withhold or withdraw the treatment.
2. A patient who takes a decision for withdrawal or withholding medical treatment has to be
protected from prosecution for the offence of ‘attempt to commit suicide’ under sec. 309 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. This provision is by way of abundant caution because it is our view
that the very provisions are not attracted and the common law also says that a patient is entitled
to allow nature to take its own course and if he does so, he commits no offence. Likewise, the
doctors have to be protected if they are prosecuted for ‘abetment of suicide’ under sections 305,
306 of the Penal Code, 1860 or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under sec. 299
read with sec. 304 of the Penal Code, 1860 when they take decisions to withhold or withdraw life
support and in the best interests of incompetent patients and also in the case of competent
patients who have not taken an informed decision. The hospital authorities should also get the
protection. This provision is also by way of abundant caution and in fact the doctors are not
guilty of any of these offences under the above sections read with sections 76 and 79 of the
Indian Penal Code as of today. Their action clearly falls under the exceptions in the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. We are also of the view that the doctors must be protected if civil and criminal
actions are instituted against them. We, therefore, propose that if the medical practitioner acts in
accordance with the provisions of the Act while withholding or withdrawing medical treatment,
his action shall be deemed to be ‘lawful’.
3. We have therefore thought it fit to provide an enabling provision under which the patients,
parents, relatives, next friend or doctors or hospitals can move a Division Bench of the High
Court for a declaration that the proposed action of continuing or withholding or withdrawing
medical treatment be declared ‘lawful’ or ‘unlawful’. As time is essence, the High Court must
decide such cases at the earliest and within thirty days. Once the High Court gives a declaration
that the action of withholding or withdrawing medical treatment proposed by the doctors is
‘lawful’, it will be binding in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings between same parties in
relation to the same patient. We made it clear that it is not necessary to move the High Court in
every case. Where the action to withhold or withdraw treatment is taken without resort to Court,
it will be deemed ‘lawful’ if the provisions of the Act have been followed and it will be a good
defense in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings to rely on the provisions of the Act.
4. It is internationally recognized that the identity of the patient, doctors, hospitals, experts be
kept confidential. Hence, we have proposed that in the Court proceedings, these persons or
bodies will be described by letters drawn from the English alphabet and none, including the
media, can disclose or publish their names. Disclosure of identity is not permitted even after the
case is disposed of.
5. The Medical Council of India must prepare and publish Guidelines in respect of withholding
or withdrawing medical treatment. The said Council may consult other expert bodies in critical
care medicine and publish their guidelines in the Central Gazette or on the website of the
Medical Council of India
__________________________
__________________________
____________________
26.
http://lawcommissionofindia
.nic.in/101-
169/Report156Vol2.pdf ,
last visited on
03.12.2011
27. 1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR
1996 SC 946
28.
.nic.in/reports/report210.pdf
, last visited on 03.12.2011
29.
.nic.in/reports/rep196.pdf ,
last visited on 03.12.2011
decision is taken by the
competent patient, it is
binding on the doctor. At
the same
time, the doctor must be
satisfied that the decision
is made by a competent
patient
and that it is an informed
decision. Such informed
decision must be one
taken by
the competent patient
independently, all by
himself i.e. without
undue pressure or
influence from others.
It must also be
made clear that the
doctor, notwithstanding
the withholding or
withdrawal of treatment,
is entitled to administer
palliative care i.e. to
relieve pain
or suffering or
discomfort or
emotional and
psychological suffering
to the
incompetent patient (who
is conscious) and also to
who has
refused medical
treatment.
2. We propose to provide
that the doctor shall not
withhold or withdraw
treatment
unless he has obtained
opinion of a body of
three expert medical
practitioners
from a panel prepared
by high ranking
Authority. We also
propose another
important caution,
namely, that the
decision to withhold or
withdraw must be
based on guidelines
issued by the Medical
Council of India as
to the
circumstances under
which medical treatment
in regard to the particular
illness or
disease, could be
withdrawn or withheld.
In addition, it is
proposed that, in the
case of competent as
well as incompetent
patients, a Register
must be maintained by
doctors who propose
withholding or
withdrawing treatment.
The decision as well as
the decision-making
process must
be noted in the Register.
The Register to be
maintained by the doctor
must conta
the reasons as to why the
doctor thinks the patient
is competent or
incompetent, as
to why he thinks that the
patient’s decision in an
informed decision or not,
as to
the view of the
experts the doctor
has consulted in the
case of incompetent
patients and competent
patients who have not
taken an informed
decision, what is
in their best interests,
the name, sex, age etc.
of the patient. He must
keep the
identity of the patient
and other particulars
confidential. Once the
above Register
is duly maintained, the
doctor must inform the
patient (if he is
conscious), or his
or her parents or
relatives before
withdrawing or
withholding medical
treatment.
If the above procedures
are followed, the
medical practitioner can
withhold or
withdraw medical
treatment to a
terminally ill patient.
Otherwise, he cannot
withhold or withdraw the
treatment.
3. A patient who takes a
decision for withdrawal or
withholding medical
treatment
has to be protected
from prosecution for
the offence of
‘attempt to commit
suicide’ under sec. 309 of
the Indian Penal Code,
1860. This provision is by
way
of abundant caution
because it is our view
that the very
provisions are not
attracted and the
common law also says
that a patient is entitled
to allow nature to
take its own course and if
he does so, he commits
no offence.
Likewise, the doctors
have to be protected if
they are prosecuted for
‘abetment of
suicide’ under sections
305, 306 of the Penal
Code, 1860 or of culpable
homicide
not amounting to murder
under sec. 299 read with
sec.304 of the Penal
Code,
1860 when they take
decisions to withhold or
withdraw life support and
in the
best interests of
incompetent patients and
also in the case of
competent patients
who have not taken an
informed decision. The
hospital authorities
should also get
the protection. This
provision is also by way
of abundant caution and
in fact the
doctors are not guilty of
any of these offences
under the above sections
read with
sections 76 and 79 of the
Indian Penal Code as of
today. Their action clearly
falls
under the exceptions in
1860.
We are also of the view
that the doctors must be
protected if civil and
criminal
actions are instituted
against them. We,
therefore, propose that
if the medical
practitioner acts in
accordance with the
provisions of the Act
while withholding or
withdrawing medical
treatment, his action
shall be deemed to be
‘lawful’.
4. We have therefore
thought it fit to provide
an enabling provision
under which the
patients, parents,
relatives, next friend or
doctors or hospitals can
move a Division
Bench of the High Court
for a declaration that the
proposed action of
continuing
or withholding or
withdrawing medical
treatment be declared
‘lawful’ or
‘unlawful’. As time is
essence, the High Court
must decide such cases
at the
earliest and within thirty
days. Once the High
Court gives a declaration
that the
action of withholding or
withdrawing medical
treatment proposed by
the doctors
is ‘lawful’, it will be
binding in subsequent
civil or criminal
proceedings between
same parties in
relation to the same
patient. We made it clear
that it is not
necessary to move the
High Court in every case.
Where the action to
withhold or
withdraw treatment is
taken without resort to
Court, it will be deemed
‘lawful’ if
the provisions of the Act
have been followed and
it will be a good defence
in
subsequent civil or
criminal proceedings to
rely on the provisions of
the Act.
5. It is internationally
recognized that the
identity of the patient,
doctors, hospitals,
experts be kept
confidential. Hence,
we have proposed
that in the Court
proceedings, these
persons or bodies will be
described by letters
drawn from the
English alphabet and
none, including the
media, can disclose or
publish their
names. Disclosure of
identity is not permitted
even after the case is
disposed of.
6. The Medical Council of
India must prepare and
publish Guidelines in
respect of
withholding or
withdrawing medical
treatment. The said
Council may consult
other expert bodies in
critical care medicine
and publish their
guidelines in the
Central Gazette or on the
website of the Medical
Council of Ind
__________________________
__________________________
____________________
26.
.nic.in/101-
last visited on
03.12.2011
27. 1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR
1996 SC 946
28.
29.
the same
patient
taken by
undue pressure or
It must also be
made clear that the
the withholding or
relieve pain
or suffering or
discomfort or
emotional and
to the
who has
refused medical
treatment.
treatment
practitioners
by high ranking
Authority. We also
propose another
important caution,
namely, that the
withdraw must be
based on guidelines
Council of India as
to the
circumstances under
illness or
disease, could be
In addition, it is
well as incompetent
doctors who propose
withholding or
the decision-making
process must
The Register to be
must cont
is competent or
incompetent, as
as to
the view of the
experts the doctor
case of incompetent
taken an informed
decision, what is
keep the
above Register
patient (if he is
conscious), or his
or her parents or
relatives before
withdrawing or
withholding medical
treatment.
are followed, the
withhold or
withdraw medical
treatment to a
treatment.
withholding medical
treatment
has to be protected
the offence of
way
of abundant caution
that the very
provisions are not
attracted and the
to allow nature to
no offence.
‘abetment of
homicide
Code,
1860 when they take
in the
best interests of
also in the case of
competent patients
should also get
in fact the
read with
falls
1860.
criminal
against them. We,
if the medical
accordance with the
withdrawing medical
‘lawful’.
under which the
patients, parents,
move a Division
proposed action of
continuing
or withholding or
withdrawing medical
‘lawful’ or
at the
days. Once the High
that the
withdrawing medical
the doctors
civil or criminal
proceedings between
same parties in
that it is not
Where the action to
withhold or
‘lawful’ if
in
subsequent civil or
the Act.
recognized that the
doctors, hospitals,
experts be kept
we have proposed
that in the Court
proceedings, these
drawn from the
none, including the
publish their
disposed of.
respect of
withholding or
withdrawing medical
treatment. The said
Council may consult
and publish their
guidelines in the
Council of In
__________________________
__________________________
____________________
26.
.nic.in/101-
last visited on
03.12.2011
27. 1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR
1996 SC 946
28.
29.
the same
patient
taken by
undue pressure or
It must also be
made clear that the
the withholding or
relieve pain
or suffering or
discomfort or
emotional and
to the
who has
refused medical
treatment.
treatment
practitioners
by high ranking
Authority. We also
propose another
important caution,
namely, that the
withdraw must be
based on guidelines
Council of India as
to the
circumstances under
illness or
disease, could be
In addition, it is
well as incompetent
doctors who propose
withholding or
the decision-making
process must
The Register to be
must co
is competent or
incompetent, as
as to
the view of the
experts the doctor
case of incompetent
taken an informed
decision, what is
keep the
above Register
patient (if he is
conscious), or his
or her parents or
relatives before
withdrawing or
withholding medical
treatment.
are followed, the
withhold or
withdraw medical
treatment to a
treatment.
withholding medical
treatment
has to be protected
the offence of
way
of abundant caution
that the very
provisions are not
attracted and the
to allow nature to
no offence.
‘abetment of
homicide
Code,
1860 when they take
in the
best interests of
also in the case of
competent patients
should also get
in fact the
read with
falls
1860.
criminal
against them. We,
if the medical
accordance with the
withdrawing medical
‘lawful’.
under which the
patients, parents,
move a Division
proposed action of
continuing
or withholding or
withdrawing medical
‘lawful’ or
at the
days. Once the High
that the
withdrawing medical
the doctors
civil or criminal
proceedings between
same parties in
that it is not
Where the action to
withhold or
‘lawful’ if
in
subsequent civil or
the Act.
recognized that the
doctors, hospitals,
experts be kept
we have proposed
that in the Court
proceedings, these
drawn from the
none, including the
publish their
disposed of.
respect of
withholding or
withdrawing medical
treatment. The said
Council may consult
and publish their
guidelines in the
Council of Indi
Morning I made a visit on my advocate office,to help in case of false allegation was charged on
base on seven-year unknown so legally he considers to be death, if came back who will get the
property.
 Miscellaneous days in supreme court. I spend my time to read-out the case status. What
are all possible way to solve the problems. I help my advocate on the base of case relate
to land accusation. Had to visit chambers to verify the sitting of the judges and when
about the case to be listed
Date: 11th December 2018 .

 Court visit attended the arguments of a senior member of the associates, for a
mismanagement of trust under TOP act
This was a case in regard to mismanagement of trust where the public money was
misused, was there where advanced arguments going in regard to providing of misuse of
money, where my senior hints by saying that an act should not be read with bare sections
but has to be read with the consideration as to why the act was established in the first. He
further goes on to submit various case laws on his behalf and pointed out the defaults in
the Criminal report, no proper record on the trust money which were transfer from
foreign countries, the case was post to hear next month.
 Court visit
 Listened to arguments of a divorce case
This was a divorce case where the parties where from wife from Mumbai and husband
was settled in German. here unlike ordinary divorce case, here the judge looked into why
the girl from Mumbai was not able to settle with her husband in German. Where the
Judge coats the life style in which the girl has been born Mumbai she doesn't have any
permit to go along with his husband, he goes on to say that the life style in German is so
different that any person moving away from India is not been able to accommodate to
that particular place life style, and that the girl here is of no different. The case was listed
for later.
 Court visit
 Case base on the person died in a police custody. Police stated that he was already a heart
patent, he consumed alcohol at the time of police got arrested. suddenly he had died in
police station.
This was a case where the police have arrested a person at mid night, when a arrest
should be done at midnight unless it was grave emergency and that the family of the
accused has to be given consideration, as banging at the nit 3 o clock at a house. Case
was post for later.
 Miscellaneous days in supreme court.

Visited the chamber to made a detail on past case status , new update on the transgender
bill passed .
 Had to verify various documents for a case in regard to partition, of a HUF property.
Property which was already gifted to some on Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. if a
daughter also has a Right to Property before 1937.
 Then went to the saket court (south delhi district court) which is one of the six district
courts in delhi
 Miscellaneous days in supreme court.

 I visited High Court of Delhi (Patiala house) regarding the AIADMK symbol case in
which the court ordered T.T.V.Dinakaran to appear before the court. And the illegal
abortion of baby in hospital Husband was filed a case against the wife and hospital,
 Verifying documents for partition of an HUF

The verification for the HUF property was still going as the number of companies created
grows as the branch in the family grows and all the shares are eventually held by the
members of the family itself, it was more like each family holding a company to its name
managed by the head of the family, they were more like small HUF.
 Had to check cause list for all the case for the cases has been posted for hearing after
vacation
Since it was the last week of the court had to check when the cases have been posted for
the next hearing.
Date: 20th-22ndDecember 2018
ASSIGNMENT 1:
Similarities between Order and Decree
According to the 1908 Civil Procedure Code, there are various common elements between a
decree and an order although they differ on key aspects. Some of the main similarities are listed
below.
Both decree and order are expressed by a judge – or a panel of judges – in a civil court;
Both are expressed in the context of a controversy (a suit) between two (or more) opposing
parties;
 Both are formal decisions; and

 Both order and decree are adjudications.
What is the Difference between Order and Decree?
Despite few commonalities, order and decree are substantially different: the first is a judgement –
generally expressed on procedural matters – while the second is a final judgement that ascertains
the rights of the parties involved. Some of the primary differences between the two include:
1.The decree focuses on the legal rights of one of (or both) contesting parties whereas the order
is mainly concerned with procedural matters. When a judge expresses an order, he does so in
order to invite or refrain one of the parties involved from taking an action:
2. During a suit, there can be only one decree – although it can be preliminary or final – while
there can be multiple orders, which are always final;
3. A decree is the formal proclamation of the adjudication made by the judge or the court, which
ascertains the rights of the parties concerned and tend to contain conclusive determination of a
right. Conversely, an order is the legal announcement of the decision (or judgment) taken by the
court (or by the judge) with regard to the relationship of the parties within the context of legal
proceedings; andA decree is usually appealable while there is no second appeal against orders
Date: 23rd -24th December 2018
ASSIGNMENT 2:
MEANING OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
Special leave petition (SLP) means that an individual takes special permission to be heard in
appeal against any high court/tribunal verdict. Thus, it is not an appeal but a petition filed for an
appeal. So after an SLP is filed, the Supreme Court may hear the matter and if it deems fit, it may
grant the ‘leave’ and convert that petition into an ‘appeal’. SLP shall then become an Appeal and
the Court will hear the matter and pass a judgment.
1. It can be filed against any judgment or decree or order of any high court /tribunal in the
territory of India, or
2. It can be filed in case a high court refuses to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to
Supreme Court of India.
3. It can be filed against any judgment of a high court within 90 days from the date of judgment,
or
4. It can be filed within 60 days against the order of a high court refusing to grant the certificate
of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court.
WHO CAN FILE SLP
Any aggrieved party can file an SLP against the judgment or order of refusal of grant of
certificate.
Through SLP, an aggrieved party can appeal to the Supreme Court against any judgement passed
by any lower court or tribunal. This leave is granted when the case involves a question of law.
Mere errors of fact, mis-appreciation of evidence or even findings of fact arrived at wrongly are
not grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is only concerned with
question of law i.e. if the law was correctly applied, whether the interpretation of law was in
accordance with the settled principles of law etc.
The aggrieved party or the petitioner filing SLP has to give a brief synopsis of the facts and
issues presented in the case along with a list of dates specifying the chronology of events
pertinent to the judgement. Along with this, the petitioner has to formulate questions of law to
appeal against the judgement. These questions should pertain to laws relevant to the general
public as well.
Once registered and presented in the Supreme Court, the petitioner will get a hearing before the
Court. Subsequently, depending on the merits of the case, the Supreme Court will issue a notice
to the opposite parties who will then file a counter affidavit stating their views. It’s at this point
that the Supreme Court will decide whether to grant leave to the petitioner or not. If the Court
grants leave, the case is then converted into a civil appeal and will be argued afresh in the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court can rescind or revoke the earlier judgement, modify it or allow it. The Court
can also send the case back to the relevant lower court for fresh adjudication in light of principles
laid down by it or on account of any issues missed out by the lower court.
Article 133–136 of the Constitution of India defines the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. Article 133 provides for civil appeals from orders of the High Court, Article 134 provides
for criminal appeals and Article 136 provides for special leave petition. If a case does not fall
within Article 133 or Article 134 then under Article 136 the Supreme Court may be moved and a
special permission may seek to grant leave to appeal.
DISCRETIONARY POWER
Appeal to Supreme Court is not a matter of right but it is matter of privilege which only the
Supreme Court will grant to any individual if there exists an important constitutional or legal
issue involved. Appeals are regulated by the Constitution of India and Supreme Court Rules,
2013.According to Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court’s judgement is
declared as law of the land and is binding on all courts in India
Date:25th December 2018:
It was the last day of my internship and received my internship certificate from the advocate
CASE:
The Vedanta Group company Sterlite has said it would move the Supreme Court to implement
the NGT order to reopen its copper plant in Tuticorin.
"The honorable Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, Friday issued notices on the matter and has
listed the same for hearing on maintainability on January 21, 2019. The honorable court has also
directed the Tamil Nadu state government to make its position clear by January 21, 2019 on
whether it proposes to file an appeal against NGT order of December 15, 2018," CEO of Sterlite
Copper P Ramnath said. "Sterlite Copper will move the Supreme Court to help implement the
NGT order in early January," he said in a statement. The Madras High Court had Friday ordered
status quo as existed before the National Green Tribunal set aside a Tamil Nadu government
order for closure of Sterlite's copper unit in Tuticorin.
The Madurai Bench had also restrained the Vedanta Group company from taking any steps to
reopen the unit.
The state government had on May 28 ordered the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to seal
and "permanently" close the mining group's copper plant following violent protests by locals
over pollution concerns. On December 15, the NGT had set aside the Tamil Nadu government
order for closure of the Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin, which was at the center of massive
protests over alleged pollution, saying it was "non-sustainable" and "unjustified." At least 13
people were killedand several injured-on May 22 when police had opened fire on a huge crowd
of people protesting against environment pollution being allegedly caused by the factory.The
Supreme Court today said the green court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Sterlite, the
company owned by the Vedanta Group, can approach the Madras High Court with its request for
permission to reopen the copper plant in Thoothukudi district, the top court said. A bench headed
by Justice RF Nariman said it is allowing Tamil Nadu's appeal against the green court order only
on grounds of maintainability
Case Comment: Kali (Deceased) vs Sellammal on 21 April, 2008
The case was from Madras High Court, the advocate was appearing for the same as appeal in the
supreme court wherein, the hearing was postponed. I was asked to write a brief on the case.
Arguments of the Plaintiff
The suit was one for declaration and permanent injunction.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that
the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's paternal grandmother Sellayee by way of a
sale deed dated 13.06.1913 and in her possession and enjoyment and as per law then in force,
after her demise, the suit property was inherited/acquired by her only son Muthu Gounder and
Muthu Gounder's father, KaruppaGounder while Muthu Gounder was a minor, was managing the
suit property, while so, he had executed the settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 in respect of the
suit property in favour of Muthu Gounder and his future wife Kuppayee and as per the said
settlement deed Muthu Gounder and Kuppayye are not entitled to individually encumber the suit
property, however entitled to create encumbrance jointly and as per law, as it is only Muthu
Gounder who had title to the suit property and hence the settlement deed executed by
KaruppaGounder is invalid and void and Kuppayee would not get any right in respect of the suit
property by virtue of the settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 and Muthu Gounder died on
30.01.1942 and the plaintiff is his only son and the first defendant is his only daughter and
accordingly, the suit property had been inherited by the plaintiff as his son as per the law then in
force and even assuming that the settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 is valid, as per the same both
Muthu Gounder and his wife Kuppayee are jointly entitled to the suit property and after their
demise, their legal heirs would be entitled to the suit property and after the demise of Muthu
Gounder, though Kuppayee would be entitled to encumber the suit property independently, the
suit property should be deemed to be only the property belonging to Muthu Gounder and
Kuppayee. Accordingly, Muthu Gounder had half share and Kuppayee had the other half share in
the suit property and Kuppayee had released her share in favor of the plaintiff by way of a
registered release deed dated 01.11.1993 and accordingly, it is only the plaintiff who has been in
the enjoyment of the suit property in entirety by paying Kists, obtaining Patta and while so, the
first defendant had without any right or interest in the suit property had executed a sale deed in
respect of her share in the suit property in favors of her grandchildren namely, the defendants 2
to However, the said sale deed is invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff and hence according
to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
Arguments of the defendant
While the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law
or on facts. It is true that the suit property originally belonged to Sellayee and it is false to state
that after her demise, Muthu Gounder had acquired title to the suit property. Sellayee had two
daughters namely Veerammal and Pavalayee. Veerammal is the first defendant's mother-in-law
and Pavalayee is the wife of Ramasamy Gounder and Veerammal died 15 years ago and
Pavalayee died 10 years ago and as per the law then in force, it is only Veerammal and Pavalayee
who as the legal heirs of Sellayee, entitled to succeed to Sellayee's property and the suit property
belonged to them and hence Muthu Gounder cannot claim any right over the suit property and it
is correct to state that KaruppaGounder had executed a settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 in
favour of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee. However, when Veerammal and Pavalayee were alone
entitled to succeed to the suit property, KaruppaGounder is not entitled to execute the above said
settlement deed, further under the above said settlement deed, only life estate has been given to
Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee without any encumbrance independently and after their demise,
the suit property devolved upon their heirs and it is false to state that the settlement deed dated
01.05.1924 is void and no steps had been taken by Muthu Gounder to cancel the settlement deed.
It is false to state that there is no heir to Sellayee other than Muthu Gounder, and as the plaintiff
and the first defendant are the legal heirs of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee, both are entitled to
equal share in the suit property. It is false to state that Kuppayee had executed the release deed in
favors of the plaintiff dated 01.11.1993 in respect of her half share in the suit property and the
above said release deed is not valid. It is false to state that the suit property belong to the plaintiff
as the sole legal heir of Muthu Gounder and it is false to state that the plaintiff has been in the
possession and enjoyment of the suit property in entirety by paying Kists, obtaining Patta etc., It
is false to state that the first defendant is not entitled to alienate her share in the suit property to
her grandchildren by way of a sale deed dated 27.03.1995. After the demise of Muthu Gounder
and Kuppayee, as per the settlement deed executed KaruppaGounder, the suit property should be
inherited only by their legal heirs namely the plaintiff and the first defendant and accordingly
they are each entitled to half share in the suit property and the first defendant accordingly granted
her half share in favour of her grandchildren and hence the suit laid by the plaintiff is not
maintainable and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.
In support of the plaintiff's case and defendants were examined. At the time of admission of the
second appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.
And it was further held that it is not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to
Sellayee. Sellayee is the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The
plaintiff and the first defendant are the children of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee. Materials
placed on record go to show that Sellayee had two daughters namely Veerammal and Pavalayee
and a son by name Muthu Gounder. Admittedly when Sellayee died, as per the law, then in force,
her property being the Sridhana property, would only get vested at the first instance in favour of
her daughters and only in the absence of the daughters, the other legal heirs, i.e., the son would
be entitled to inherit the property of Sellayee in the order of succession. When it is found that on
the demise of Sellayee, she having left behind two daughters and one son, it is only the daughters
who would inherit the property belonging to Sellayee and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that
on the demise of Sellayee, Muthu Gounder had inherited the property as per the law then in force
as such cannot be accepted. Accordingly, it is found that the defendants have raised the plea that
the suit laid by the plaintiff without impleading Veerammal and Pavalayee or their legal heirs is
not maintainable. When the plaintiff has not disputed that Veerammal and Pavalayee are the
daughters of Sellayee, in the order of succession, the property belonging to Sellayee would only
devolve upon her daughters and not on Muthu Gounder.
Also Kuppayee has no right to encumber the suit property said to have been given to her by way
of settlement deed and equally when Muthu Gounder has also not been given the power to
encumber the suit property under the said document and when after their demise, the property
should be inherited by their legal heirs, it is seen that the claim of the plaintiff that after the
demise of Muthu Gounder in the year 1942, he had become entitled to his share absolutely as
such cannot be accepted in any manner. When as per Ex.A2 instrument, the property after the
demise of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee should devolve upon their legal heirs and when
admittedly the plaintiff and the first defendant are their legal heirs, the claim of the plaintiff that
he is entitled to the share of Muthu Gounder exclusively on his demise as such cannot be
accepted in any manner.
And also Muthu Gounder is not shown to be entitled to inherit the suit property on the demise of
Sellayee and assuming for the sake of arguments, that Ex.A2 settlement deed is valid, as per the
terms thereof, on the demise of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee, their legal heirs would be
entitled to derive the suit property equally, it is found that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim
exclusive title to the suit property or to the alleged share belonging to Muthu Gounder on his
demise during 1942 and similarly the plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim title to the suit
property on the strength of the release deed said to have been executed by Kuppayee, when she
has not been given the power of encumbrance.
In this connection, the counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decision reported in
AIR 2002 SCC 136 [ Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad and Another] and the counsel for the
respondents placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2016 (3) MWN (Civil) 487
[Muthusamy and three others Vs. A.Maruchamy and another]
In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Internship Diary - Winter Break (Dec-2018) Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli

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 Diary - Winter Break (Dec-2018) Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Internship Diary – Winter Break (Dec-2018)

Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli

Under the guidance of Mr.V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,

Name: N.BAVITHRAN Reg. No: BC0140018

Year of study: V year

Internship type: SupremeCourt

Organization’s Name: V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, Advocate Supreme Court of India

Contact person in organization: 9842290385

Period of Internship: 2/12/18 – 25/12/18

Internship Approved/Internship NOT Approved:

Internal supervisor’s signature: Date:

External supervisor certificate submitted

Internship diary submitted

Date: 2nd -3rd December 2018

Date: 4th-5th December 2018

Date: 6th December 2018

 Court proceedings till 4:30 case not heard upon

Date: 7th December 2018

Date: 8th December 2018

Obviously, the first thing

Date: 10th December 2018

Date: 11th December 2018 .

Date: 12th December 2018

Date: 13th December 2018

 Miscellaneous days in supreme court.

Date: 15th December 2018

Date: 17th December 2018

 Miscellaneous days in supreme court.

Date: 18th December 2018

 Verifying documents for partition of an HUF

Date: 20th-22ndDecember 2018

Similarities between Order and Decree

 Both are formal decisions; and

What is the Difference between Order and Decree?

Date: 23rd -24th December 2018

MEANING OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

WHO CAN FILE SLP

Date:25th December 2018:

Case Comment: Kali (Deceased) vs Sellammal on 21 April, 2008

Arguments of the Plaintiff

Arguments of the defendant

You might also like