Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Internship report rohtak
Internship report rohtak
) TENTH SEMESTER
SUBMITTED BY:-
PRITAM ANANTA
1. Declaration 2
2. Acknowledgement 3
3. Certificate 4
4. Introduction 5
Annexure Petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read 22–31
A with section 2(b) and section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act
1971 and under rule 3(c) of rules to regulate proceedings for
Contempt of Supreme Court, 1975
Annexure Application under section 151 C.P.C. for revival of the 32-41
B execution petition no. 241/2009
Page | 1
DECLARATION
This declaration is made on this ____ day of May 2013 at Delhi that this internship report
has been prepared and drafted by me under the supervision of Ms. Tanya Khare, Associate at
O.P. Khaitan & Co., Khaitan House, B-1 Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. It contains the
work accomplished by me which was assigned to me during internship. This work was done
in respect of the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of Bachelor of
Law [B.B.A., LL.B (H)]. This has not been submitted either in whole or in part to any other
Law University or affiliated Institute under University, recognized by the Bar Council of
India for the award of any law degree or diploma within the territories of India.
Page | 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, I would like to thank God for his blessings and benevolently granting me vigor
and audacity to complete my internship successfully.
This is to express gratitude towards all persons who guided and motivated me throughout my
internship period. It gives me immense pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness and deep
sense of gratitude and respect to Ms. Tanya Khare, Associate, O.P. Khaitan and Co. and Mr.
Mohd. Saeed Husain, Junior Associate, O.P. Khaitan and Co., B-1, Defence Colony, New
Delhi-110024, without whose constant guidance, this internship would have been impossible.
I am thankful to them for their invaluable teachings, guidance, advice given to me, for
helping me in exploring and understanding the legal drafting preparation for cases and
research methodology better. I would also like to thank Mr. Arihant Jain, Junior Partner, O.P.
Khaitan and Co. for his invaluable help and guidance.
Page | 3
CERTIFICATE
The documents attached herein are the true copy of the certificate received by me in lieu of
the work undertaken during the course of my internship and the drafts prepared by me for the
drafting purposes.
Page | 4
INTRODUCTION
The classroom study and practical training in the field of law is considered as two sides of
coin. The legal profession is one of the professions which is considered incomplete without
the practical training. During our five year course, we are taught both substantive as well as
procedural laws but in order to understand their real application, it becomes very essential to
understand the court proceedings and drafting for the purpose of submissions in the Hon’ble
courts. Theoretical knowledge is not complete without practical experience. Practicing in
court, only for a few months can make you learn more than your entire five year span of the
college, practically.
Internship period is a phase which provides a golden opportunity to a law student, before his
graduation, to work in the Courts for understanding the functioning and proceeding of the
Court and the most importantly, it helps in better understanding of the pleading before the
Hon’ble courts. It is due to these reasons, internship is considered as incorporated as part of
the curriculum and is given such significance.
I got an opportunity to associate myself and work under the guidance of Ms. Tanya Khare,
Associate, O.P. Khaitan & Co., for the span of two and a half months. During that period, I
learnt a lot about the art of Drafting, Presentation of Pleadings and the Research on different
aspects of law and the challenging propositions that she asked me to undertake, were always
the best teachers.
I also got an opportunity to associate myself and work under the guidance of Mr. Mohd.
Saeed Husain, Junior Associate, O.P. Khaitan & Co., for the span of two and a half months.
During that period, I learnt a lot about the art of pleadings in the court and analysis of various
provisions of the statutes involved in the case.
This internship period was of valuable work experience to start my legal career and helped
me to develop necessary understanding of this field and its future prospect. The experience
taught me how the written laws are applied in the real world. It also showed me the minute
details of the drafting and pleadings which are either not mentioned or overlooked. Following
pages show the range, variety and versatility of work that I have done during my Internship
period.
Page | 5
INTERNSHIP REPORT FROM 1ST OF FEBRUARY, 2013 TILL 28TH OF
FEBRUARY, 2013
FEBRUARY 2013
Page | 6
Continued research on the previously assigned subject and tried to find newspaper
articles for the same.
Page | 7
7th February, 2013 (Thursday)
Continued the task of briefing of the paper book for the matter titled CBI vs. M.K.
Menon and ors.
Was assigned the task of vetting certain lease documents.
Page | 8
Was assigned the task to draft a Contempt petition as the Respondents in the matter
titled M/s Actia India Ltd. vs. H.K.A. Agencies had disregarded the settlement
recorded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. [Marked as Annexure A]
Page | 9
Was assigned the task to vet and edit a suit which was required to be filed in the
subsequent week.
Page | 10
ITERNSHIP REPORT FROM 1ST OF MARCH, 2013 TILL 31ST OF MARCH, 2013
MARCH, 2013
Page | 11
Next Date: 1st April, 2013
Proceedings: As the documents filed by the appellants were received by the
respondents on 1st March, time was requested for to file a reply. The same was
granted. List on 1.4.2013
Was assigned the task to draft a Writ Petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 42/2012
under section 482 in the matter titled Sarabjit Singh vs. State.
Page | 12
Continued the task of research on the requirements for creation of a public trust, if
any, under the Indian Trust, 1882 and its management, registration, and any related
statutory requirements.
Page | 13
Judge Name: Ms. Ambika Singh, MM
Court: Court No. 4, Patiala House Courts
Next Date: 18th May, 2013
Proceedings: Fresh Process to be served.
Continued the task to research on the topic “What constitutes a publication under the
Copyright Act, 1957”, pertaining to a specific issue at hand in a related matter.
Page | 14
19th March, 2013 (Tuesday)
Was assigned the task to prepare status report of litigations between M/s Actia India
and H.K.A. Agencies.
Was assigned the task to research on the topic acertainability of land under order VII
Rule 3
Page | 15
26th March, 2013 (Tuesday)
Completed the task of drafting a suit to be filed pertaining to the dispute between
Zamil Infra Ltd and Sunergy India Ltd. & Others.
Page | 16
INTERNSHIP REPORT FROM 1ST OF APRIL, 2013 TILL 15TH OF APRIL, 2013
APRIL, 2013
Page | 17
6th April, 2013 (Saturday)
Had taken a leave for research for the dissertation.
Page | 18
15th April, 2013 (Monday)
Was required to submit a note on the tasks handled during the course of internship
Page | 19
Internship
Certificate
Page | 20
Internship
Certificate
Page | 21
ANNEXURE - A
IN
Versus
1. That the Petitioner had filed the above captioned petition challenging the judgment
dated 11th January, 2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
a) On March 4,2009 an award was passed in favour of the Petitioner wherein the
“In total Rs. 2,52,79,787/- was awarded (comprising of principal sum of Rs.
2,30,43,558.72/- and interest upto the date of filing of the claim amounting to Rs.
Page | 22
12,36,228.68/- and the cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs) with interest on principal amount @
b) That there after the Petitioner initiated the execution proceedings seeking
execution and enforcement of the award dated March 4, 2009 and filed an
Execution Petition no. 241 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
c) The Respondents in the said execution raised the plea that the execution petition
was not maintainable before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as “the branch
concerned falls within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court,” wherein the
Respondents have filed application being Arbitration O.P. No. 744 of 2009
challenging the award and whereunder the District Court, Ernakulam has passed
pending before the District court Ernakulam and also filed an application being
I.A No. 104 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC interalia on the ground that since
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi a petition under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being OMP No. 655 of 2008 praying for the
restraint order with respect to the bank account of HKA and ors(Respondents),
particulars of which were given in the said petition under reference. The
Respondents had entered appearance and also filed their reply. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide its order dated April 2, 2009 passed the order
for attaching the amount lying deposited in the said bank account of the
Respondents with specific direction that the same shall not be disbursed and
Page | 23
disturbed till further orders and without the leave of the court. In view thereof, in
accordance with section 42 of the Act, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had
the act to the exclusion of all other courts including the court at Ernakulam.
e) In view of the pendency of proceedings before Kerala District Court, the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court adjourned the execution Petition sine die with liberty to the
parties to revive the same as & when the occasion therefore arises.
f) The Petitioner’s application being I.A No. 104 of 2010 before the Ld. District
account of section 42 of the Act, was allowed on 10.12.2010 and the Respondents’
g) That the Respondents still took their chances and challenged the said order of
District Judge before the Hon’ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court , which
ultimately vide its order dated January 11,2011 dismissed their appeal; however,
despite the said dismissal, the Division Bench in para 18 of the said judgment of
January 11,2011 passed the direction permitting the Respondents to prefer section
Page | 24
i) Aggrieved by the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench Kerala High court, the
j) In the SLP this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated July 6,2011 stayed the
proceedings before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the section 34 petition of the
Judgement Debtors being OMP no. 173 of 2011. Here to annexed and marked as
ANNEXURE ______ is the copy of the said order dated July 6,2011.
2. Sometime around November, 2011 the parties i.e. the Petitioner and the Respondents
deliberated and reached an amicable settlement. A joint application being I.A. no. 2 of
2012 under order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed before this Hon’ble Court. Here to
annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _______ is the copy of the joint application
3. As per the settlement as arrived between the parties, the Respondents were to pay Rs
2 crore to the Petitioner in full and final settlement of all dues; the said sum was to be
paid in twelve installments i.e. eleven PDCs of Rs 16,65,000/ and a demand draft of
Rs 16,85,000/;.
4. The terms of settlement were incorporated in para 2 of the application ; under clause
2(g) of the application the Respondents undertook that the post dated cheques shall be
honoured by their bank as and when they are presented for payment.
the Respondents the award passed by the learned arbitrator dated Marc 4,2009 would
stand satisfied.
Page | 25
6. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed off the aforementioned SLP on March 15,
hereinabove.
“IA 2 of 2011, has been filed in the Special Leave Petition, praying for the
matter to be disposed of, since the parties have arrived at a mutual settlement,
In terms of paragraph 2(d) of the application, a cheque for the sum of Rs.
16,65,000/- has been made over by the respondents to the petitioner’s learned
advocate. Accordingly, let the Special Leave petition be disposed of, in view of
Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _____ is the copy of the order dated
7. That around one month after the order of this Hon’ble Court, the Respondents
requested for rescheduling of payment dates of its PDC’s and the demand draft.
Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _______ is the email dated 20.04.2012
8. That accordingly, out of the total agreed settled sum of Rs 2 Crore the Respondents
paid an amount of Rs 1,33,40,000/ only i.e. out of the twelve installments, eight
Page | 26
9. That thereafter, however, for the remaining four installments totaling to Rs 66,60,000/
falling due from July 2012, the Respondents again requested for an accommodation to
10. That on the request of the Respondents, the Petitioner accordingly and bonafide
believing the request of the Respondents did not present the two cheques dated July
31, 2012 and August 31,2012 respectively on their due dates. Pertinent to mention
that even for the cheque dated June, 2012 the Petitioner on the request of Respondents
further accommodated the Respondents by extending the time with respect to the
Payment of Rs. 16,65000/- due against the cheque dated June, 2012. The said
payment was made by the Respondents in two installments in November 2012. The
reason cited by Respondents for delayed payment was heavy income tax paid by the
11. That thereafter as the Respondents were not forthcoming with the new date for the
presentation of the aforesaid cheques, several mails were issued by the Petitioner
asking for further time with repeated assurances portraying a very dismayed picture
about the Non availability of finances. The Respondents cited various reasons/excuses
to the Petitioner for non-payment. The patience of the Petitioner was being tested.
12. Ultimately, Respondents via email dated December 5, 2012 stated that for the balance
4 installments he needed some more time and he would clear the balance 4
installments via 4 new cheques from Jan 30 to April 30 ,2013. In furtherance of the
Page | 27
Respondents’ email and as per the recent RBI notification regarding the new format
of the cheques the Petitioner sent an e-mail dated December 6, 2012 to the
Respondent asking for reissuance of fresh cheques dated 30th December 2012, 30th
13. The copies of the emails exchanged between the Petitioner and the Respondent is
15. That the Petitioner states that since the Respondents failed to issue new cheques, the
Petitioner on December 24,2012 presented the two cheques dated September 29,2012
and October 31, 2012 for Rs. 16,65,000/- each drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd
Pallrivattom Branch, Kochi 682025, for encashment. That both the cheques were
returned unpaid by the bankers of Respondents for the reason “funds insufficient”.
The copy of the memos received from the Bank is annexed hereto and marked
ANNEXURE ________ colly. That cheque dated October 31, 2012 was represented
by the Petitioner on January 18, 2013 but the same was again dishonoured. The copy
of the memo received from the Bank is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE
_______.
16. That the Petitioner has issued legal notices under section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 to the Respondents on January 25, 2013 and January 28, 2013
with respect to cheque dated 29.09.2012 and 31.10.2012 respectively. Annexed hereto
and marked ANNEXURE _____ & ______ respectively are the copies of legal
Page | 28
notices dated 25.01.2013 and 28.01.2013. It is submitted that the same was being
issued without prejudice to the right of the Petitioner to recover the entire due amount
as per the original award and to initiate the present contempt proceedings against the
Respondents.
17. In the meanwhile, mails were exchanged between Petitioner and Respondents
between December 25, 2012 and January 21, 2013 i.e. subsequent to the presentation
of two cheques by Petitioner for encashment and before issuance of Legal Notices by
ANNEXURE _____ colly. In one of the mails dated December 31,2012 the
Respondents informed that they have issued a new cheque in lieu of the cheque which
had become date invalid. The said cheque was received by the Petitioner on January
5,2013 and is dated February 28,2013; subsequently in one of the mails dated
19.01.2013 the Respondents informed that instead of the four due instalments, they
can only pay two instalment and that too in between March 15 & 30, 2013. The said
mail was replied by Petitioner on 21.01.2013 informing that any renegotiation of the
18. It is submitted that the sequence of events as detailed herein above ex facie
demonstrate that the Respondents have not only deliberately and contumaciously not
complied with the terms of joint application filed before this Hon’ble Court in which
the order dated March 15,2012 was passed by this Hon’ble Court but have also
deliberately violated the undertaking given to this Hon’ble Court under the said
application and therefore, the Respondents clearly are guilty of contempt of this
Hon’ble Court.
Page | 29
19. It is submitted that since the Respondents have deliberately flouted the terms of
settlement as recorded in the joint application filed before this Hon’ble Court and
have failed to pay the due amount for which undertaking was given them. Moreover,
as the Respondents /contemnors had failed to satisfy the award, as settled in terms of
the compromise, the Petitioner moved an application for the revival of the execution
proceedings before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for recovering the remaining award
amount in which notice has been issued by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court .
20. It is submitted as the Respondents have not complied with the terms of joint
application filed before this Hon’ble Court and are guilty of violating and that too
deliberately the undertaking as given before this Hon’ble Court as well as the order of
this Hon’ble Court dated March 15, 2012 disposing the present matter in terms of the
joint application, the Petitioner is moving the present petition before this Hon’ble
21. It is submitted that the order dated March 15, 2012 passed by this Hon’ble Court was
based on the undertaking given by the Respondents to this Hon’ble Court. The
Respondents have deliberately and intentionally infringed and violated the order,
22. That the willful disobedience and breach of the settlement order Respondents
constitutes contempt of Court and the Respondents are liable to be proceeded against
Page | 30
under article 129 of the Constitution of India read with section 2 (b) and Section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and under Rule 3 (c) of the Rules to regulate
23. That the present application is made bonafide and is in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to:-
c) attach the properties of the Respondents for deliberately flouting the orders of this
Court.
d) Pass such further or other order and/or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
PETITIONER
THROUGH:
NEW DELHI
DATED: FEBRUARY, 2013
Page | 31
ANNEXURE - B
IN
1. The Decree holder had filed the present execution proceedings seeking execution and
enforcement of the award dated March 4, 2009 passed in favour of the decree holder
by the learned arbitrator Justice A.M. Ahmadi (Retd).The details of the amount as
2,30,43,558.72/- and interest upto the date of filing of the claim amounting to
Rs. 12,36,228.68/- and the cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs) with interest on principal
Page | 32
2. By an order dated 30.09.2010, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to adjourn the present
execution proceedings sine die with liberty to the parties to revive the same. The said
a) In the present execution proceedings this Hon’ble Court vide its Order
“file affidavits before the next date of hearing disclosing all their
assets and properties both movable and immovable including bank a/c
b) Pursuant to the said order, the Judgment Debtors filed the Counter
Affidavit raising the plea that the present execution petition was not
744 of 2009 challenging the award and whereunder the District Court,
award.
clarified that till the time of filing of the present execution petition,
the Judgment Debtors in the District Court Ernakulam, Kerala nor had
it received any notice to that effect; It was only subsequent to the filing
of the present petition that the Decree Holder was served with a court
Page | 33
d) Immediately, thereafter the Decree Holder entered appearance in the
said proceedings and also filed an application being I.A No. 104 of
2010 under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC interalia on the ground that since
Holder) had filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
being OMP No. 655 of 2008 praying for the restraint order with
The Judgment debtors had entered appearance and also filed their
reply. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide its order
dated Aprial 2, 2009 passed the order for attaching the amount lying
specific direction that the same shall not be disbursed and disturbed
till further orders and without the leave of the court. In view thereof, in
accordance with section 42 of the Act, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
3. In view of the pendency of proceedings before Kerala District Court, this Hon’ble
Court adjourned the present Petition sine die with liberty to the parties to revive the
Page | 34
4. It is stated that the decree holder’s application being I.A No. 104 of 2010 before the
application on account of section 42 of the Act, was allowed on 10.12.2010 and the
annexed and marked as ANNEXURE ______ is the copy of the said order dated
5. That the Judgment Debtors still took their chances and challenged the said order of
District Judge before the Hon’ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court , which
ultimately vide its order dated January 11,2011 dismissed their appeal; however,
despite the said dismissal, the Division Bench in para 18 of the said judgment of
January 11,2011 passed the direction permitting the Judgment Debtor to prefer section
34 application before the Delhi High Court within 30 days. Here to annexed and
marked as ANNEXURE _______ is the copy of the said order dated 11.01.2011
6. On February 6, 2011 Judgment Debtors filed section 34 application before Delhi High
Court which on February 28, 2011 issued notice on judgment Debtors’ application
7. Aggrieved by the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench Kerala High court, the
8. In the SLP as filed by the Decree Holder, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order
dated July 6,2011 stayed the proceedings before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the
Page | 35
section 34 petition of the judgment debtors being OMP no. 173 of 2011. Here to
annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _____ is the copy of the said order dated July
6, 2011.
9. Sometime around November, 2011 the parties i.e. decree holder as well as judgment
order 23 rule 3 CPC was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Here to annexed
and marked as ANNEXURE _____ is the copy of the joint application being I.A No.
10. As per the settlement as arrived between the parties , the judgment debtors were to
pay Rs 2 crore to the decree holder in full and final settlement of all dues; the said
sum was to be paid in twelve installments i.e. eleven PDCs of Rs 16,65,000/ and a
The terms of settlement are in para 2 of the application ; in clause 2(g) the judgment
debtors undertook that the post dated cheques shall be honored by their bank as and
the judgment debtors the award passed by the learned arbitrator dated Marc 4,2009
11. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed off the aforementioned SLP on March 15,
hereinabove. Hereto annexed and marked as ANNEXURE _____ is the copy of order
dated March 15, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pertinent to mention
Page | 36
that around one month after the order of Supreme Court, the Judgment Debtors
requested for rescheduling of payment dates of its PDCS and the dd---- hereto
Debtors to the Decree Holder. Receiving the Judgment debtor request, the Decree
holder presented the cheques on the defendant is confirmed by the Judgment Holders.
12. That the Decree Holder states that out of the total agreed settled sum of Rs 2 Crore the
judgment debtors paid an amount of Rs 1,33,40,000/ only i.e. out of the twelve
installments, eight installments were duly paid. However, for the remaining four
installments totaling to Rs 66,60,000/ falling due from July 2012, the judgment
constraint as faced by them in their business. On the request of the judgment debtors,
the Decree holder did not present the two cheques dated July 31,2012 and August 31,
2012 respectively. Pertinent to mention that even for the cheque dated June, 2012 the
Judgment Debtors by extending the time with respect to the Payment of Rs.
16,65000/- due against the cheque dated June 26, 2012. The said payment was made
by the Judgment Debtors in two installments 4 November 2012. The reason cited by
Judgment Debtors for delayed payment was heavy income tax paid by the Judgment
Debtors as a result of which they pleaded inadequate -----of funds in their accounts.
13. That thereafter several mails were exchanged between the parties wherein the decree
holder kept asking as to by when he could present the cheques. Several assurances
were given to the decree holder by the judgment debtors and a very dismayed picture
was portrayed about the Non availability of finances. The Judgment Debtors cited
Page | 37
various reasons/excuses to the decree holder for non-payment. The patience of the
The Judgment Debtor via email dated December 5, 2012 stated that for the balance 4
installments he needed some more time and he would clear the balance 4 installments
via 4 new cheques from Jan 30 to April 30 ,2013. In furtherance of the Judgment
Debtor’s email and as per the recent RBI notification regarding the new format of the
cheques the Decree holder sent an e-mail dated December 6, 2012 to the Judgment
Debtor asking for reissuance of fresh cheques dated 30th December 2012, 30th
The copies of the emails exchanged between the Decree holder and the Judgment
14. Perusal of the same reveals and substantiates that fact that the judgment debtors had
requested for the deferment of payment date and not for the reduction of the amount
due ; in larger interest the decree holder agreed for the same. Taking advantage of the
leniency as shown by the decree holder, the judgment debtors acted in defiance of the
agreement and the undertaking as given before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
15. That the decree holder states that Since the Judgment Debtors failed to issue new
cheques, the decree holder on December 24,2012 presented the two cheques dated
September 29,2012 and October 31, 2012 for Rs. 16,65,000/- each drawn on ING
Vysya Bank Ltd Pallrivattom Branch, Kochi 682025, for encashment. That both the
cheques were returned unpaid by the bankers of Judgment Debtors for the reason
“funds insufficient”. The copy of the memo received from the Bank is annexed hereto
and marked ANNEXURE _____. That cheque dated October 31, 2012 was
Page | 38
represented by the Decree holder on January 18, 2013 but the same was again
dishonored. The copy of the memo received from the Bank is annexed hereto and
marked as ANNEXURE _____. That the Decree holder has issued legal notices under
section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 to the Judgment Debtors on January
25, 2013 and January 28, 2013 with respect to cheque dated 29.09.2012 and
& _____ respectively are the copies of legal notices dated 25.01.2013 and
28.01.2013.
16 It is submitted that the Judgment Debtors have not complied with the joint
application filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and are also guilty of violating
the undertaking as given before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for which the Decree
holder would be taking appropriate steps. That the Decree holder is also filing
herewith the copies of mails exchanged between Decree holder and Judgment Debtors
between December 25, 2012 and January 21, 2013 i.e. subsequent to the presentation
of two cheques by Decree Holder for encashment and before issuance of Legal
Notices by Decree Holder and Judgment Debtors, the copies of mails is annexed
hereto and marked as ANNEXURE _____ colly. In one of the mails dated 19.01.2013
the Judgment Debtors informed that instead of the four due installments, they can
only pay two installment and that too in between March 15 & 30, 2013. The said mail
was replied by Decree Holder on 21.01.2013 informing that any renegotiation of the
terms was not acceptable to the Decree Holder. It is submitted that the same is
being issued without prejudice to the right of the decree holder to recover the entire
Page | 39
17. It is submitted that since the Judgment Debtors have broken the terms of
recorded in the joint application filed before the Supreme court and have failed to pay
the undertaken due amount, the non-payment by the Judgment debtors entitles the
Decree holder to recover the entire original amount due for which the Decree Holder
is moving the present application for the revival of the execution proceedings before
this Hon’ble Court . It is submitted that the present is a fit case for the recovery of
18. It is pertinent to mention that as per clause 2(h) of the joint application moved before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court the parties had inter alia agreed that on disposal of the
petition in terms of the settlement , the judgment debtors would withdraw OMP no.
173 of 2011 filed before the Hon’ble Delhi High court and the decree holder would
withdraw the above captioned execution petition being 241 of 2009 before this
Hon’ble Court.
19. It is stated that neither the judgment debtors withdrew their section 34 nor did the
Decree holder withdrew its execution. It is stated that since the Judgment debtors
were not complying with the terms of settlement, the question/opportunity of Decree
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the decree holder is seeking the
revival of the above captioned execution petition which was adjourned sine die. The
revival is sought for the purposes of recovering the due decreetal amount.
Page | 40
20. In the aforesaid circumstances, the execution proceedings may be revived and
proceeded with by this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, the Decree Holder is filing the
present application.
PRAYER
The Decree Holder most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
(b) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
DECREE HOLDER/APPLICANT
THROUGH:
NEW DELHI
BHARTI BADESRA
O.P.KHAITAN & CO,
ADVOCATES FOR THE DECREE HOLDER/APPLICANT
KHAITAN HOUSE
B-1, DEFENCE COLONY
NEW DELHI-110024
PH. 46501000
DATED: FEBRUARY __, 2013
Page | 41