INTERNSHIP DIARY

2022-2023

Submitted By - Jayant Saini Submitted to – Ms Swati Solanki

Roll No - 202598
Examination Roll No - 20311806624
Section - G
INTERNSHIP CERTIFICATE
 DETAIL OF COURT VISITS

DAY 1
18/11/22

On the first day of internship, I reached at the chamber at 9.30 am as directed to me. In the
chamber sir was seating and wished him good morning and he also gave me warm welcome.
After that I was ready to proceed to the courts but before that sir discussed some norms and
procedures of the court and also gave me brief idea about what we are going to do today. He
also assigned me a task of filing two fresh cases. On that they we were not having any cases
or proceeding before the court we only have to file two new fresh cases. On those cases I
assisted sir and also typed the document, ran for photocopy, stationary shop and also searched
the filing window in the court and filed the case

In the Court of Ms Neha, Civil Judge, Tiz hazari Court, Delhi

In the Matter of:
State Bank Of Bikaner and Jaipur……………………………………………….Plaintiff
Versus
Abhay Kapoor……………………………………………………………………Respondent
This Matter relates to recovery of rs. 3 lakhs.
We have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. The matter is in final arguments stage where the
defendants seek adjournment due to non preparedness of final arguments. The judge after
discussing from both sides have given the next date for the same low according to the factual
scenario of the case and facts.
 DAY 2
19/11/2022

1. Satpal Singh V. Gurmeet

Court Premises: Dwarka Court
The Presiding Officer Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani Metropolitan Magistrate
Brief facts: The accused took a loan from the complainant of 2,50,000
rupees and at the demand of that loan the accused issued two cheques in
favour of complainant for this amount and on the widrawl of the both
cheques the complaint came to know that his demand of widrawl was
cancelled due to insufficient funds in accused’s account. The complainant
also issued several legal notices to the accused. But he did not return
complainant’s money. Thus, this dispute has aroused. Complainant filed
this case under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
Proceeding Before the Court: the learned judge after recording the
appearance of the both parties and their advocate referred the matter for
mediation. And adjourned matter for the next hearing.

2. State V. Narpal Singh

Court premises : Dwarka Court
Presiding Officer Jyoti Metropolitan Magistrate
Brief facts: the accused was arrested by the police on 28th September 2016
under section 489 A of IPC 1860. The accused was facing allegations of
the counterfeiting of currency notes of 50 rupees. But there was no
evidences led by the police to booked him under this section.
Proceeding before the court : after examining all the facts and evidences
submitted by the police. The court discharged accused under section 239
of Cr.PC,1973 as the charges against the accused was groundless and no
prima facie case has been made out against him.

DAY 3
21/112022
1. State V. Shahrukh Ali
Court Premises: Dwarka Court
Presiding Officer : Archana Singh
Counsel appeared on the behalf of accused
Brief facts: the accused was a charged under section 12 of Domestic Violence
Act,2003. His wife has made allegations against him that he tried to burn her when
she was working in the kitchen.
Proceeding before the court: the counsel under which I interned examine the
complainant wife and asked her certain question to know the truthfulness of her
statement which she had gave before the police. And after that adjourned the matter
for the next date.
2. Sandeep Bansal V. Koyal Kohli
Court premises: Dwarka Court
Filed: As this was fresh divorce petition filed by the petitioner under section 13(1)(i)
of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955
His wife was ran away with her lover after few months of their marriage. He also filed
a case against the lover of her wife under section 497 of IPC,1860. Thus, filed this
petition before the principle family judge. I assisted junior counsel at the filing
window.

DAY 4
22/11/ 2022

1. Jasvinder Singh V. Ajay Kumar

Court premises: accha Tis Hazari
Presiding officer Akansha Vyas Metropolitan Magistrate
Brief facts of the case: the accused has took the loan from the complainant of
5,00,000 rupees and on the repayment of that debt he produced certain cheques.
The third cheque which was of rupees 1,50,000 was issued by accused in favor of
the complainant on the production of the said cheque to the bank the complainant
got a receipt that insufficient funds. After this the complainant noticed accused for
the same but non payment of the said amount the complainant also gave him legal
notice but accused didn’t repaid his debt. There for this complaint has been filed
by the complainant against the accused under section 138 of NI Act.
Proceeding before the court: the both parties agreed to refer their matter for
mediation on the previous hearing. And they submitted the mediation report on
which they agreed. The court adjourned the matter for the next date.
2. Sandeep Bansal V. Koyal Kohli
Court premises: Dwarka Court
Counsel appeared on the behalf of complainant
Presiding officer Mahesh Chander Gupta Metropolitan Magistrate
Brief facts of the case: the marriage between the complainant was solemnized as
per hindu rites and ceremony after few months the complainant came to know that
her wife is having an extra marital affair with her boyfriend. The complainant has
talked about this to her wife and their family members, and they settle this
problem and his wife promised him that she will not do this again but after
sometime her wife ran away with her lover. Thus, the complainant filed this case
against the lover of her wife with whom her wife living in adultery under section
497 of IPC,1860.
 Proceeding before the court: the court after issued certain summons to the
complainant’s wife and her lover ordered police to compel their presence before
the court, and adjourned the matter for next date of hearing.

DAY 5
23/11/2022

1. Sukhivinder Singh V. Ravinder Kaur

This was a divorce petition where we filed case on behalf of the husband petitioner
Sukhvinder Singh.
The petitioner filed the petition for granting divorce to his wife under Sec.13(1) (ia) &
(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The official who was at the filing window told me to note the date, case no, and the
name of principle family judge before which this petition of grant is going to be listed
and also gave me date on which the petitioner with us will appear with the advocate.
2. Tarun Kumar V. Anjali Sachdeva
This was a civil suit filed by the husband against her wife. As they were living
separately due to temperamental differences and they both decided to dissolve their
marriage amicably. They applied jointly for the divorce by mutual consent and and
settled their dispute to the tune of 1,80,000 rupees the first party who is husband paid
1,00,000 rupees to second party(wife) on first motion and decided to pay 80,000 rupees
at the time of second motion. But the second party failed to appear for second motion
and also filed complaint against first party to CAW. So the first party in normal
circumstances have right to recover the same amount with interest. Thus, this case was
filed for the recovery of the same amount by the plaintiff Tarun Kumar.
This case was also filed and drafted by me with the help of some seniors.

DAY 6
24/11/2022

On the second day of the internship I reached to the chamber at 9.45 in the morning.
After some brief discussions about the cases for which we were going to appear on that
day we rushed towards the courtroom.

1. State V. Avnish and Ors.

The Presiding Officer of the court was V. K. Bansal who is an Additional Session
Judge.
Court premises: Dwarka Court
Counsel appeared on behalf of Accused.
The accused alongwith three other co accused was facing the charge of theft in a
house.
The police arrested on 5th January,2022 for same under section 378 of IPC,1860.
Proceeding before the court: the counsel under which I interned cross examine one
of main prosecution witness and asked some questions to check the truthfulness of
 the statement of the prosecution witness which he had given to the police. After that
the matter was adjourned for the next date.
2. Sukhvinder Singh V. Ravinder Kaur
Court Premises : Dwarka Court
Counsel appeared on the behalf of petitioner.
As the matter was the fresh divorce as filed on the 10th march 2022.
The petition was filed by the Sukhvinder Singh, petitioner for the grant of divorce
under section13(1) (ia) and (ib).
This petition of divorce was listed before the Principle Family Judge Swarn Kant
Sharma,
Proceeding in court: in the courtroom the judge asked certain question from the
petitioner and we also submitted certain relevant document. And after that issue
notice or summon to the respondent to file a reply for the same.

3. Tarun Kumar V. Anjali Sachdeva

Court Premises: Dwarka Court
The presiding officer was Sidhharth Mathur Senior Civil Judge
Counsel appeared on the behalf of the plaintiff

DAY 7
25/11/2022
Court of Sh. Rajnish bhatnagar ,session judge ,rohini (delhi)
Case title- Attar singh v. pratap singh
Case type- Criminal Complaint u/s 323, 341, 506, 34 I.P.C.
Description:
We appeared from the side of accused and one complainant witness was examined by the Court.
The witness was calling himself ‘Independent-Eye witness’ of the incident but during the
course of examination, as the Presiding Officer started noting down the statement, witness
started going off-road and stated such things which were against him.
From the side of complainant, Sh. Raman Sardana, Advocate appeared and from the side of
accused, Sh. B.S. Parihar, Advocate appeared.
Some questions were asked which were pertaining to the case but almost all questions were
just to bully over the witness and to put witness into pressure. From the way of questioning,
the case theory on which the final arguments of case were rested, was clearly manifesting from
the questions. Non-leading questions were put to witness which gave room for that witness to
explain the contradictions and on some questions which were highly incriminating in nature,
Judge objected on those questions. Manner of fencing the witness was very bad. Without
completing one question, another question was asked. Very material contradictions to discredit
the version of witness were brought on the record during the examination and in that course,
witness started feeling un-well and the case was adjourned to 04/01/2023.
 DAY 8
26/11/2022

Court of Sh.Rajnish bhatnagar ,Session judge, Dwarka (Delhi)

Case title- Ankit versus Pavitra and others
Case type- Criminal Complaint u/s 323, 341, 506, 34 I.P.C.
Description:
From the side of complainant, Sh. Raman Sardana, Advocate appeared and from the side of
accused, Sh. B.S. Parihar, Advocate appeared.
This time, as the counsel for accused started asking questions from the witness, on second or
third question witness frustrated and asked the Court to relieve him. Very major contradiction
which demolish the whole testimony of witness was secured by counsel of accused. At
beginning, when the witness was at ease, counsel started from leading question to bound the
witness in four corners and as witness gave depositions, counsel asked questions impeaching
the credit of witness and showing him ‘Partisan witness’. The manner of asking question was
very rude and some hot exchange of words between the witness and counsel happened which
were ultimately controlled by Judge by reprimanding the witness.
One wrong thing was that counsel never took his case theory in his mind before started
questioning the witness. Manner of fencing the witness was very bad. Questions were
projecting various case theories but the material to complete any case theory was not gathered.
Very material contradictions to discredit the version of witness were brought on the record
during the examination and in that course, court time was over and the case was adjourned.
.
 DAY 9
28/11/2022

Court of Sh. B.R. Bansal

Case title- Surender kumar v. Snch setta
Case type- Criminal Revision filed by Complainant and Criminal Appeal filed by accused

Description:
Criminal Complaint was filed by complainant in which accused were summoned by the Court
and in 2019, accused were convicted and accused filed appeal in Sessions Court. Accused were
discharged u/s 392 IPC. Hence, complainant filed criminal revision against the conviction order
for enhancement of sentence.
Very lengthy arguments were addressed by the counsels from both sides.
The structure of arguments of counsel for appellant was not good. At outsell, he started with
his request to set aside the conviction order because that is bad in eye of law. Thereafter,
counsel directly jumped towards the final submission without narrating the factual matrix of
case. Much reliance was placed on the judgments rather than the factual complexity and the
provision of Law itself.
No sound case theory was put forth by counsel of appellant and during the course of arguments,
the counsel of appellant was swaying from one side of stand to another with holding papers in
his hands.
The counsel of complainant also emphasised on the maintainability of sentence and also
enhancement of sentence. However, not plausible arguments were addressed. The facts were
projected in nice and lucid manner but the law point was not in much favor of complainant.
Resultantly, Judge dismissed the appeal filed against conviction and the revision filed by the
complainant and directed the accused to undergo the sentence already imposed.
 DAY 10
29/11/2022

Court of Sh. Sudarshan kaushak ,Senior civil judge, Saket

Case title- Amarjeet singh v. aswinder singh
Case type- Civil Appeal against the decree of Ld. Trial Court.
Description:
Appellant filed a Civil Suit for getting declaration that he is owner of certain piece of land and
the same suit was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court. then, appeal u/s 96 of C.P.C. was preferred
by the plaintiff.
An application under order 41 rule 27 of C.P.C. was filed by appellant to examine hand-writing
experts. Short arguments were addressed by the counsel D.K. Dhamija regarding the malicious
approach of appellant towards the Court but final arguments could not be addressed and the
case was adjourned
.
 DAY 11
30/11/2022

Court of Aditi garg Tis hazari

Case title- rajendra saran v. state
Case type- Anticipatory Bail
Description:
FIR was registered against petitioner on the direction of Punjab and Haryana High Court. FIR
was under section 420, 406, 120-B IPC.
During the argument, it was contended that no useful purpose of keeping the petitioner in
custody will be served as petitioner already joined the investigation of Police on direction of
Ld. Court.
Structure of arguments was well-founded. First, counsel explained the innocence of petitioner
and secondly the nature of allegation and the offences in which petitioner is roped.
Looking at the nature of case where case is solely based on documentary evidences, bail
application was allowed by the Court.
 DAY 12
01/12/2022

Court of Ms. Shetty arora

Case title- prem arora v. kartar chand
Case type- Dishonor of Cheque
For petitioner- Sh. P.S. Saini, Advocate
For respondent- Sh. Vipin Arora, Advocate
Description:
Cheque in question was of Rs. 100000/-. Complainant alleged that accused borrowed Rs.
100000/- from him but never paid through cheque.
Counsel for accused put forth arguments in very lucid manner. Brief arguments were as follow:
1. No writing regarding payment of money,
2. No proof of capacity to pay Rs. 100000/-,
3. Cheque handed over to complainant not by accused,
4. Illegal use of cheque just to extort money from accused.

Apart from the factual explanation, very stitched arguments were also addressed by the learned
counsel for accused and ultimately, complainant failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt and the
 DAY 13
02/12/2022

In the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi

C.S (OS) NO. 457/ 2014
In The Matter Of:
Shri Jasbir Singh Virdi……………………………………………………………..Plaintiff
Versus
M/S. IDBI Bank Limited………………………………………………………..Defendant

Suit for recovery of rs. 31,58,000./-. The Plaintiff has filed against the Defendant Bank as the
bank has not given the sale deed of the property mortgaged even after the foreclosure of the
full loan amount. The plaintiff had lodged an FIR against the bank. The Magistrate dismissed
the case as it was based on fraudulent grounds. Then the Plaintiff filed a civil suit against the
defendant bank. But the defendant contentions are that the plaintiff had deliberately not given
the sale deed to the bank after sanctioning of the loan amount. Moreover, the plaintiff had
gifted the said property to the wife.
The case is in cross-examination stage in the court of SHRI LALIT KUMAR, ADJ (S.E)
SAKET COURT, DELHI.
We are appearing on behalf of Defendant Bank.
accused was acquitted from the offence.
 DAY 14
03/12/2022

Court of Sh. Santram prasad

Case title- State v.
Case type- FIR no. 407 of 2015 u/s 302, 148, 149 IPC etc.
For complainant- APP assisted by Sh. D.K. Dhamija, Advocate
For accused- Sh. P.K. Sandhir, Advocate
Description:
One witness named Dr. Virender from Prosecution side was awaited for examination. This
Doctor conducted Post-Mortem of deceased. When Doctor was not coming despite of service
of summons on him, counsel for accused urged before the Court to strike out the name of
witness from the list because accused were in judicial custody.
The oral request of counsel of accused was opposed by counsel for complainant on ground that
on the very first opportunity, such far reaching step should not be taken which may have far
reaching consequences. In mean time, telephone call received to Naib of Court in which Dr.
Virender explained his problem and expressed his eagerness to come tomorrow. This request
of Naib on behalf of Doctor was accepted and the case was adjourned.
 DAY 15
05/12/2022

Court of Ms. Chander mohan, Civil Judge (Senior Division), rohini court
Case title- O.P. sood v. Rajesh soodh
Case type- Civil Suit for declaration
Description:
Plaintiff filed a suit for getting declaration to effect that sale deed of property is null and void
as plaintiff, son of deceased father, being legal heir of father was not given any share out of
property.
Plaintiff tried to establish that plaintiff was the son of father born out of wedlock of first
marriage of father and later on mother of plaintiff died and father solemnized marriage agin.
The step-mother without treating him as her own son, did not give share out of property of his
father and fraudulantely transferred the property to another person illegally.
.
 DAY 16
06/12/2022

Court of Ms. Reenu bhatnagar

Case title- Murlidhar v ayurvedav biscuts.
Case type- Dishonor of Cheque
Description:
Case pertains to business transactions.
Case was fixed for Defence Evidences in which one witness was examined to show the real
facts. Not lengthy cross was made by complainant counsel but some factum was extracted in
easy and comfortable manner. Although the tone of counsel of complainant was slightly high
but his manner of fencing the witness was good. He tried his best to demolish the case of
accused. Case adjourned .
 DAY 17
07/12/2022
Consumer Forum, delhi
Case title- Girdhari Lal versus Balaji Motors (American Motor Works).
Case type- Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Description:
Case was fixed for arguments of case.
Counsel for complainant tried to establish that there is deficiency in part of O.P. and as
such, complainant is entitle to get compensation. The manner of presenting argument
was pleasant but not well structured. Sometime, he was bringing facts and sometime
the legal position. Even, no time to open the file was given by counsel to President of
Forum. He just vomited what he crammed.
The arguments of counsel of opposite party was also nice but slightly in anger tone. But
the manner of giving emphasizing on the facts and the legal position was very fine and
praise deserving.

DAY 18

08/12/2022

Research Question: To understand the scope of “per incuriam” doctrine and how it has
been utilized by common law courts in England and U.S. and how it has been
enunciated by Supreme court of India by understanding the application of “per
incuriam” doctrine? Researcher today analyzed the doctrine as per the concept applied
by courts in India in cases like- Philip Jeyasingh v. The Joint Registrar, Rashmi Rekha
Thatoi & Anr v.s State of Orissa & Ors, Sibnath Koley And Ors. v. State Of West
Bengal And Ors, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others, where it is concluded
that the decisions of the Court of Appeal upon questions of law must be followed by
Divisional Courts and Courts of first instance, and as a general rule, are binding on the
Court of Appeal until a contrary determination has been arrived at by the House of
Lords.

DAY 19

09/12/2022

18
Continue to do research on the topic “per incuriam”. Since the doctrine emerged from
the English law, the researcher feels to continue it research on the relevant topic to
understand its scope and applicability of English law. The relevant doctrine is
fundamentally similarly applied in India as in the courts by England

DAY 20

10/12/2022

Today the Hon‟ble court sit to hear the miscellaneous matters, generally related for
direction sand office report, adjourned matters and fresh matters mostly related to delay
in filling SLP or Ex-party stay or order or seek permission to file additional matters.

DAY 21

12/12/2022

Research Question: Whether if the punishment or penalty is altered by law through

amendment & maximum punishment or penalty is unaltered, is it an ex post facto, a
law which is violative of art. 20(1)?

DAY 22

13/12/2022

Miscellaneous matters: generally related for directions and office report, adjourned
matter sand fresh matters mostly related to delay in filling SLP or Ex-party stay or order
or seek permission to file additional matters. Around 66 matters are listed today, some
of them which are crucial for the understanding of proceeding in Hon‟ble court are as
follows: 1. In a case related to maintenance, women remarried, husband approach under
Art.136 to set aside the maintenance, the court directed the petitioner that to approach
a proper forum, when statutory remedy is provided petitioner should avail the same, as
Sec127(3) Cr.p.c provided the statutory remedy in case the women re-married to
modify or set aside the maintenance, the husband should approach the magistrate
holding the jurisdiction and not by the way of SLP. 2. In a case of cheating, fraud
embezzlement, where crores and crores of rupees are alleged, investigation is not over,
bail cannot be granted.

DAY 23

14/12/2022

19
Research Question: What are the Legal remedies available to a foreign employee if he
violates the terms of his Visa, be it for employment or Business purpose?

DAY 24

15/12/2022

Research Question: In Criminal Law, a case can be transferred from State police to
CBI even after filling of a charge sheet. Find relevant case laws?

20
 DRAFT NO.1

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS (COMM) NO. 425 OF 2022

NV DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
A.D.S. SPIRITS PVT. LTD. DEFENDANT

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER VIII

RULE 1 AS AMENDED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURTS, COMMERCIAL
DIVISION AND COMMERCIAL APPELATE DIVISION OF HIGH COURTS
ACT, 2015 READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC FOR CONDONATION OF
DELAY OF 10 DAYS IN FILING OF WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE
DEFENDANT

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the aforementioned suit has been filed by the Plaintiff against the

Defendant for an alleged infringement of trade mark, passing off, delivery up,

etc. and the same is listed before this Hon'ble Court on 16.10.2022.

2. That vide order dated 31.05.2022 this Hon'ble Court passed an ex-parte ad-

interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, thereby

restraining the Defendant, their agents, directors, promotees, etc. from using the

mark / logo / label BEST or any other logo which is deceptively similar to the

Plaintiff’s alleged trademark ‘BESTO’.

21
3. That the Defendant received summons of this Hon'ble Court via Speed post

receipt no. SU000836898IN delivered to the Defendants factory premises in

Jhajjar, Haryana on 09.08.2022.

4. That as the defense of the Defendant inter alia is also that the trademark BESTO

of the Plaintiff and the ‘Device of Horses’ included in the label of the Plaintiff

is common to trade and which defense is available to the Defendant under

Section 144 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 it was necessary to scan the records

of the Registrar of Trade Marks for the purpose of searching out applicants who

in the liquor trade were commonly using the ‘Device of Horses’ and which was

a gigantic task as the said information is not readily available to the public.

5. That it is only now that the Defendant has been able to retrieve from the

records of the Trade Marks Registry the relevant information which is also

included as a part of the written statement. The delay of 10 days in filing the

said written statement was neither intentional nor deliberate and was solely for

the reasons as mentioned above.

6. That even otherwise no prejudice shall be caused to the Plaintiff as an order of

injunction dated 31.05.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court prevails in favour the

Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

7. It is therefore prayed that the delay of 9 days for filing the written statement

along with the documents and reply to stay application may kindly be condoned

in the interest of justice.

22
 Any other order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case may also be passed.

Prayed accordingly.

M/S. A.D.S SPIRITS PVT. LTD.

THROUGH

(YASHVEER SINGH KADIAN)

MANAGER HR & ADMIN
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

THROUGH

(KRITIKA SAHNI)
ADVOCATE
ENRL. NO. D/520/2011
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

NEW DELHI
DATED: 19.11.2022

23
DRAFT NO. 2

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CS (COMM) NO. 425 OF 2022

NV DISTILLERIES PVT. LTD. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS
A.D.S. SPIRITS PVT. LTD. DEFENDANT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Yashveer Singh Kadian, S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Kadian, aged about 40 years, Manager

HR & Admin and authorized signatory of the Defendant Company having its registered

office at FF-2, Harmony Appartments, 52/78, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi-110026

do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as under:-

1. That I am the Manager HR & Admin and authorized signatory of the Defendant

company and am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and duly

competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying application under Section 151 CPC on

behalf of the said Defendant for condonation of delay in filing of written statement

along with the documents has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and

the same have been read and understood by me and the same are true and correct to my

knowledge as derived from the records of the Defendant company.

(YASHVEER SINGH KADIAN)

MANAGER HR & ADMIN
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
24
VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this the 19th day of November, 2022 that the contents

of the above affidavit are true and correct and no part of it is false and nothing material

has been concealed therein.

(YASHVEER SINGH KADIAN)

MANAGER HR & ADMIN
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

THE END

25