Integrated Five-Year B.A. LL.

B Programme

Batch: 2019 – 2024

Academic Year: 2023 – 2024

Name: Prarthana K Patel

Roll No: 100

IL -511 Advance Drafting

Semester X
 INDEX

UNIT: 1&2 DRAFTING UNDER FAMILY LAW & COMPANY

LAW

SR. NO. TITLE OF DRAFT PAGE NUMBER

01. PETITION FOR RESTITUTION OF 02.

CONJUGAL RIGHTS U/S. 9 OF HINDU

MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

02. PETITION FOR JUDICIAL SEPARATION U/S. 13.

10 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

03. PETITION FOR DIVORCE U/S. 13(B) OF 16.

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

04. CUSTODY OF CHILD APPLICATION 23.

05. AMALGAMATION 29.

06. AGREEMENT FOR REDUCTION OF SHARE 32.

CAPITAL

07. PETITION FOR DIVORCE U/S. 13 OF HINDU 34.

MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

2
UNIT: 3&4.1 DRAFTING UNDER INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY LAW AND MISCELLANEOUS

DRAFTING
SR. NO. TITLE OF DRAFT PAGE NUMBER

01. QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE FIR 41.

U/S 482 OF CrPC

02. APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO 47.

INFORMATION

03. SUIT FOR OBTAINING SUCCESSION 49.

CERTIFICATE

04. DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT 52.

05. DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT 54.

06. AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHOR AND 58.

PUBLISHER

07. DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF TRADEMARK 62.

UNIT: 4.2 JUDGMENT WRITING

SR. NO. TITLE OF DRAFT PAGE NUMBER

01. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (REVIEW 67.

PETITION)

3
 EVALUATION COMMITTEE

______________ _______________ ________________

Dr. Vidhi Shah Dr. Suja Nayar Ms. Hiral Shukla

_______________________
Dr. Mayuri H. Pandya
Dean
GLS LAW COLLEGE

4
 UNIT 1 & 2

DRAFTING UNDER FAMILY LAW AND COMPANY LAW

1
 1) A PETITION FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS U/S 9

OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT AT AHMEDABAD

HMP NO. of 2019.

Aanan Pravin Kanabar,

Age: 34 years, Hindu by Religion,

Occupation: Business,

Presently residing at Prism International LLC, Royal Towers,

MBD, Po Box 1051, pc- 131,

Hamriya, Sultanate of Oman. ….Petitioner

VERSUS

Mira Aanan Kanabar,

Aged: 33 years, Hindu by Religion,

Occupation: Service,

Residing at: 702/B, Vrundavan Complex, Near Subhash Chowk,

Gurukul Road, Memnagar,

Ahmedabad-380052

And

Present address at:

Flat no. 508, Building no. 78,

Way no. 3715,

2
 Bawshar, Musat,

Sultanate of Oman. …Respondent

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE

ACT, 1955

The petitioner above named most respectfully begs to submit as under:

1. The petitioner and the respondent are Hindu by religion and marriage between the parties

to the petition was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Fun Point resort Nr.

Kargil Petrol Pump at Ahmedabad on 02.12.2012 and from the said marriage between

the parties to the petition, there is no issue born out of the said wedlock and at present the

Respondent herein is not pregnant.

2. That the Petitioner is the husband of the Respondent. The marriage between the

Respondent and the Petitioner was solemnized on 02-12-2012 as per Hindu rites and

rituals at Ahmedabad and there are no children from the marriage. The Respondent and

the Petitioner have their matrimonial house is in Oman.

3. It is submitted that the Respondent and the petitioner knew each other since school time

as they studied in the same standard. The said marriage was a love marriage and the

Respondent and the petitioner were in courtship period for six years before they got

married. It is further submitted that in the courtship period the Respondent and the

petitioner were living as if they were married as they were extremely in love with each

other. The Respondent and the petitioner even before the marriage had travelled to many

places together like Goa, Dubai, Mumbai, Thailand etc. It is further submitted that the

Respondent and the petitioner had common friends with whom they used to spend their

weekends and a lot of time in their vacations.

3
4. It is submitted that the Respondent’s parents did not approve of the petitioner for the

Respondent as they wanted the Respondent to get married with someone in their own

caste and community. Yet the Respondent was extremely firm about marrying the

petitioner as they had a really good and a healthy relationship and the petitioner took

extremely good care of the Respondent. The Petitioner had gone to The United Kingdom

to study for a year from 2007 to 2008 during the period of their courtship. Even then the

petitioner used to speak to the Respondent day and night in spite of the time difference

and used to video call her twice a day. The Respondent also used to reciprocate and even

though the petitioner was not in Oman the Respondent used to regularly go and spend

time with the petitioner, parents and his sister. The petitioner even though had gone to

London for further studies used to visit Oman to spend time with the Respondent and his

parents as it was hard for the Respondent to take leave from her job and visit London to

meet the petitioner .

5. It is submitted that the marriage function of the parties to the petition happened at Fun

Point Resort near Kargil Petrol Pump at Ahmedabad in the pleasant month of December.

The functions of the marriage were beautiful and all the friends and family of both the

Respondent and the petitioner had a really good time and the Respondent and the

petitioner were extremely happy. It is submitted that soon after the marriage Respondent

and the petitioner left for the honeymoon. The petitioner had booked a luxurious cruise

which covered a few countries in Europe like Italy, France, Spain, Tunisia etc. It is further

submitted that the Respondent had not visited Europe before in her entire life and so the

petitioner made sure that they spent a beautiful time visiting such luxurious countries for

their honeymoon. They were so happy during their honeymoon that they even extended

their Honeymoon period and went to Venice for a few days.

4
6. It is submitted that during the courtship period and before the marriage of the Respondent

and the petitioner, the Petitioner used to live in a rented 2BHK apartment at Ruwi, Oman

which is a commercial area. During 2011 when the Respondent and the petitioner were

having conversations about their future together, Respondent had expressed her views on

wanting to shift to a bigger house at Sultanate of Oman. Thus after the marriage the

Respondent, petitioner and his family rented a 5BHK villa only on the insistence of the

Respondent. It is submitted that the Respondent wanted the interior of the house and the

furniture of her choice and so before the Respondent and the petitioner came to India to

get married the Respondent and the petitioner themselves went to buy new furniture and

the Respondent also did the interior of the new luxurious house of their choice.

7. It is submitted that both the Respondent and the petitioner have a common group of

friends and so most of the nights of the week and the entire weekends the Respondent

and the petitioner used to spend together with the friends as all of the petitioner s friends

were married and the Respondent was friends with their wives. It is submitted that there

was hardly any time that the Petitioner used to go out without the Respondent except for

times when only the boys of the group had decided to meet. But at that time the girls of

the group would have made some of the other plans as well. The Respondent and the

petitioner had a really good group of friends at Oman and have spent a lot of memorable

times together with them. It is submitted that the Respondent used to work at Mustafa

Sultan Company and the Petitioner had his own company since 2009. The Respondent

knows and is friends with most of the office employees of the petitioner’s company while

the petitioner on the other hand, does not know any of the Respondent’s colleagues who

work with her at her job. It is further submitted that it is against the labour laws of Oman

to work for more than 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day yet the Respondent used to be at

work from 8:30 AM to 8:30 PM. As her work place was near to the house the petitioner

5
 at many times used to insist the Respondent to come home and have lunch with the family

but the Respondent used to be resistant on eating lunch with her colleagues at work or

going out at a restaurant with them.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner and the Respondent came to India one year after their

marriage in January 2014 to meet the Respondent’s parents and spend family time with

them. It is submitted that during their stay they went to Udaipur and Nathdwara and really

enjoyed their holiday. It is further submitted that when they returned back to Ahmedabad

from Udaipur Respondent’s father out of the blue told the petitioner that the Respondent

and the petitioner should shift to a 2BHK as a nuclear family. The petitioner was shocked

to hear this and told the Respondent’s father that he had worked really hard to get the

5BHK luxurious house as per the Respondent’s wishes and had also invested a lot of

money in the interior and the furniture as per the Respondent’s wishes.

9. The petitioner said that before the marriage when the Respondent demanded to move to

a bigger house the Respondent had told the petitioner that she would not marry him if he

did not fulfill her wishes and that is why the petitioner and his father worked very hard,

borrowed lump sum amount from the petitioner’s mothers family, etc and bought a new

house and now the respondent’s father demanding the Respondent and the petitioner to

move to a house as a nuclear family came as a shock to him. The petitioner had told the

Respondent’s late father that there was no reason for them to do so as the Respondent

and the petitioner parents bonded well and there was no interference in the life of the

Respondent and the petitioner’s from his parents side and therefore the petitioner did not

see any reason why they should move to a new house as a nuclear family when they’re

already rented a huge house keeping in mind their future.

6
10. The late Respondent’s father got angry that the petitioner did not adhere to his wishes

and had asked the petitioner to borrow money from his father and get a new house or else

he would ask his daughter to divorce him. There was no reason given from the

Respondent’s parent’s side as to why they were asking the petitioner to get a new house when

they were already staying in peace in an extremely luxurious house which the Respondent

had chosen and also done the interior in.

11. It is submitted that the Respondent and the petitioner after the marriage always used to

go for vacations together except for once when the Respondent went to Egypt without

the petitioner and the petitioner went to Thailand in year XYX without the Respondent.

It is further submitted that what the Respondent and the petitioner had discussed these

two trips where they would not be accompanying each other and both of them were okay

with it. The Respondent had gone to Egypt with her colleagues from work while the

petitioner had gone to Thailand with his friends that only included boys and neither of

their wives was accompanying them.

12. It is submitted that the Respondent never encouraged the petitioner in his career life and

the petitioner being an entrepreneur needed a lot of encouragement but yet the

Respondent was too involved in her own career and goals and did not care about the

petitioner’s goals and career. The petitioner always used to encourage the Respondent in

her career and ambitions and push autos the goals. Whenever the Respondent would

return home from work in a bad mood the petitioner would enquire from the Respondent

as two if her bad mood was because of anyone problem work and then the petitioner will

sit with the Respondent.

13. It is submitted that the Respondent being of a different cast and religion never respected

the petitioner’s cast. The Respondent used to visit India twice or thrice a year and every

time she would go the petitioner’s extended family who stay at Rajkot would invite her

7
 at their place as they had only met her once at the wedding but the Respondent would not

only refuse to go there but whenever they would call her the Respondent would rudely

deny on the phone and at times not answer the petitioner’s relatives phone calls at all.

The reason being the Respondent thought that the petitioner family was not on the same

level as her family and that is why she felt an inferiority complex while talking to them

and so she would not answer the phone calls, reply to their invitations on message or visit

their house at Rajkot whenever she would come to Gujarat.

14. It is submitted that the petitioner’s mother Is highly diabetic and most of the medicines

she is prescribed I’m not available at Oman and therefore whenever the Respondent

would go to India to meet her parents the petitioner would request her to buy his mother’s

medicines and thereafter as soon as she would return to Oman the petitioner would return

the said money to her.

15. It is submitted that the petitioner after two years of their marriage wanted to have a child

and so he suggested the idea to the Respondent. The petitioner said that they have a big

house and that both the Respondent and the petitioner are working and earning and both

of them are having a stable lifestyle and but the Respondent bluntly refused saying that

she did not want a child as she did not want to take care and liked her current lifestyle

without any responsibility where she could freely roam around and work as per her rules

and look for However long she wanted.

16. It is submitted that the Respondent had called her parents to Oman and told the petitioner

and his family members that the Respondent’s parents would be staying at their house for

three months. The petitioner’s parents were very happy and made all the preparations to

make the Respondent’s parents feel welcomed and comfortable at their home. The

Respondent insisted on giving her and the petitioner’s room to her parents to stay in as it

was bigger. The petitioner readily agreed as he wanted the Respondent’s parents to feel

8
 comfortable and so they shifted to another room in the house. The Respondent and her

parents suddenly started behaving extremely nicely to the petitioner and his family

members.

17. They started apologizing to the petitioner about their hostile attitude towards him and the

Respondent s father also told the petitioner that he really liked the house and he was sorry

that he was forcing the petitioner to move to another house as a nuclear family with the

Respondent. The petitioner parents even suggested that both the families should go to

Europe for a holiday so as they would bond well. The petitioner and his family were

extremely happy that finally the Respondent’s family had accepted the petitioner.

Thereafter the most horrific episode happened on 10th December 2016 the Respondent

and her parents in the middle of the night taken off from the petitioner s home and the

Respondent s belonging including the gold ornaments and stridhan was missing from the

house.

18. The Respondent and his family only found out about this in the morning. The petitioner

was worried as to where the Respondent and her parents had gone and so he called them

many times but no one answered. It is submitted that the petitioner was aghast after this

particular episode and he tried many a time to resolve the issues between them but it was

of no use as the Respondent refused to speak to the petitioner. The petitioner felt that it

was because of the involvement of the Respondent s parents as from before the marriage

the Respondent s parents had not approve of the petitioner.

19. The petitioner has always treated the Respondent with a lot of care and as always tried to

keep the Respondent happy not only materialistically but also emotionally. He has been

a pillar of strength to the Respondent but the Respondent s hostile attitude towards the

petitioner changed your separation.

9
20. It is submitted that at the time of marriage the relationship between the parties to the

petition were smooth However, after the intervention of the family members of the

Respondent, the marriage between the parties hereto had hit a rough patch.

21. It is most respectfully submitted that, during the matrimonial span by and between the

parties herein, on many occasions the Petitioner and Respondent had gone for vacations

and in all the vacations the relations by and between the parties hereto were very

cordial. It is the case of the Petitioner that family members of the Respondent had

influenced the Respondent too an extent that today the Respondent is not ready to

contact the Petitioner even on phone.

22. It is further submitted that the Petitioner and elderly family members of the Petitioner

family on various instance had tried to contact the Respondent and his family members

for the reconciliation of the Disputes. However, the Respondent and her family members

are not ready to even attend the calls of the Petitioner and his family members.

23. It is further submitted that, the involvement of the family members of the Respondent

were too an extent that they decided that the Petitioner and the Respondent shall separate

and shall file divorce proceedings. It is submitted that neither the Petitioner nor the

Respondent was given proper opportunity to decide on their future. On the contrary the

Petitioner and his parents were making genuine efforts for reconciliation.

24. It is submitted that the respondent without any cause or reason the Respondent has

deserted the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent did not even contact the petitioner. It

is submitted that the petitioner has time and again requested the respondent to come and

reside with the petitioner and has also met the respondent and her parents but the

respondent was not ready and willing to even listen to the petitioner. It is submitted that

the respondent has withdrawn herself from cohabiting with the petitioner without just

cause and keep away herself from the petitioner. The respondent has refused and is still

10
 refusing to restore conjugal rights. Thus, the respondent has deserted the petitioner and

withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without any just and reasonable

cause/ excuse. Therefore, this petition is required to be filed.

25. It is submitted that there is a willful neglect on the part of the respondent and the

respondent has shown her unwillingness to join and reside with the petitioner, the

respondent has not thought it fit to come and reside with the petitioner. It is submitted

that the petitioner has clearly proved the conduct of the respondent and the fact that the

respondent has deserted the petitioner and the respondent has been living separately from

the petitioner. The petitioner has also proved the factums of separation by the respondent

and also her intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. It is submitted that

leaving matrimonial home without consent of the petitioner and thereafter not returning

to matrimonial home amounts to cruelty. It is submitted that the petitioner has proved

beyond doubt that desertion by the respondent is without any just cause and fact that the

present petitioner and respondent are living separately. The present respondent is not

coming to reside with the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent left the petitioner

without any reasonable excuse or cause and the respondent left matrimonial home of the

petitioner.

26. It is submitted that the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and petitioner is ready and

willing to reside with the Petitioner and the petitioner will make every efforts to make

marriage life successful. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court for

restitution of conjugal rights as the respondent has without any reasonable cause and

excuse withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner.

27. That the marriage between the parties to the petition was solemnized in 02.12.2012 and

thus the present petition is not filed within one year of marriage.

11
28. Cause of action to file present petition has arisen when the respondent after amicable

solution between the parties to the petition has left and deserted the petitioner. This

Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide this application as marriage between

the parties to the petition was solemnized at Ahmedabad and hence this Hon’ble Court

has jurisdiction to try and decide the present application.

29. The petitioner therefore prays as under.

a. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in

favor of the petitioner and direct the respondent to reside with the petitioner.

b. Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be found just

and necessary in the interest of justice.

30. Address of the parties to the petition, as shown in the cause title of this petition is true

and correct and the same is in conformity of Order 6 Rule 14 of the CPC.

31. Vakalatnama and copies for the other side are produced with this petition.

32. Necessary court fee stamp of Rs._____ is affixed on this application.

33. A separate affidavit in support of this application is filed.

PLACE: AHMEDABAD

DATE:

__________________

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

12
 2) PETITION FOR JUDICIAL SEPARATION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

CASE NO. 324/2020

In the matter of S.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, and in the matter of:

Smt. Smriti Sharma

Aged 30 years

Residence of A 112/2

Shalimar Apartments, Thaltej

Ahmedabad, Gujarat

Pin: 380045 …PETITIONER

VS.

Shri. Vikas Sharma

Aged 33 years

Residence of C 34/4

Shanti Niketan Society, Ambavadi

Ahmedabad, Gujarat

Pin: 380023 …RESPONDENT

PETITION FOR JUDICIAL SEPARATION UNDER S.10 OF THE

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955

13
RESPECTFULLY SHWETH:

1. That at all material times and at present the parties to the proceedings were

and are Hindu and so ruled by the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

2. That on 25th February 2018 the applicant was duly married to Respondent

and the said marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites.

3. That ever since the said marriage and until the 12th February 2020 the

applicant and the respondent cohabited and lived as husband and wife at.

When he withdrew himself from the society of applicant without any

probable or reasonable cause and thereby deserted her to all purposes and

intents.

4. That from and soon after the marriage the said Respondent habitually and

with very few exceptions conducted himself towards the applicant with

severe cruelty and harshness by abusing her in most filthy language.

5. That applicant has not in any way been party to or connived at or condoned

any of the said acts of Respondent.

6. That the said Respondent also maliciously, falsely charged the applicant as

having committed adultery, abused the applicant in several manners and

treated the applicant with such cruelty as cause a reasonable fear in the mind

of the applicant that it will be most harmful /injurious for the petitioner to

live further with the said Respondent.

7. That this court has jurisdiction to entertain this application as the marriage

was celebrated at Ahmedabad.

14
8. The applicant therefore prays for a decree for judicial separation between the

applicant and the said Respondent.

VERIFICATION

I, Riya, daughter of Pankaj Malhotra, and wife of Punit Sharma aged about 30

years by occupation housewife do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows: I

am the petitioner above-named and I know and I have made my acquainted with

the facts and circumstances of this case. The statements in paragraphs 1 to 9 are

true to my knowledge and belief.

______________________

PETITIONER’S SIGNATURE.

15
 3) A PETITION FOR DIVORCE U/S 13(B) OF THE HINDU

MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT AT

AHMEDABAD

HMP NO. _______ OF 2019

PETITIONERS:

1. Krishna Vivek Jarecha

D/o. Shailendra Kumar Saini

Age 32 years, Hindu by religion,

Occupation : Housewife,

Residing at M- 801, Parishkar Flat,

Khokhra Circle, Maninagar, Ahmedabad.

2. Vivek Satishchandra Jarecha

Age 33 years, Hindu by religion,

Occupation: Service,

Residing at: Sunrise Park, Opp.

Golden Park, Deesa,

Banaskatha-385 535.

PETITION FOR DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT UNDER SECTION

16
 13B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

The parties to the present petition most respectfully beg to submit as under:

1. The petitioner No. 2 is the husband of the petitioner No. 1.

2. The marriage between the present petitioners was solemnized on 11/12/2010 at

Ahmedabad as per Hindu rites and rituals in presence of family members, relatives,

friends and acquaintances.

3. The parties to this petition have one child from the marriage called Yuvraj Vivek Jarecha

born on 13/03/2012 who is currently in the custody of Petitioner no.2.

4. It is submitted that after the marriage, the parties to the present petition settled down at

Ahmedabad.

5. The petitioners submit that since 04/02/2016 are not staying as husband & wife and are

staying separately at the addresses mentioned in the cause title of the petition.

6. The parties to the present petition submit that during the married life of the parties to the

present petition, they had numerous differences of opinion and could not get along well

together as there were number of disputes that had cropped up between them. The

disputes were arising on trifle matters. Thus, the rift between the parties to the present

petition went on increasing day-by-day and resultantly it has become absolutely

impossible for the parties to the petition to live together and enjoy their married life

peacefully and happily.

7. Under the circumstances, the parties to the petition have not been living as husband &

wife since 04/02/2016 are not staying as husband and wife and petitioners are staying at

the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition. Thus, the parties to the petition

have no marital relations with each other since then. Hence, this application for divorce

by mutual consent.

17
8. The petitioners submit that on the date of presentation of this petition, they have been

living separately for a continuous period of more than three and half years and there is

no prospect whatsoever of resuming their marital life with each other, and on account of

their disputes, it is no longer possible for them to live together peacefully as husband and

wife even the efforts of their friends and relatives to sort out the disputes and differences

have failed.

9. That both the Petitioners have mutually agreed as follows:

a. The Petitioner No.1 shall not withdraw his consent of divorce under section 13B

until judgment and decree is passed in the present petition and shall cooperate in

the present proceedings and on given the said assurance by the Petitioner No.1 to

Petitioner No.2 and the Hon’ble Court, the Petitioner No.2 agrees to withdraw the

case filed by the Petitioner No.2 and the Petitioner no.1 shall withdraw the case

filed by her and thus it shall be withdrawn after the evidence is taken in the present

proceedings.

b. The Petitioner no.1 agree and confirm that she has received her entire Streedhan

property, ornaments and all her personal belongings from the Petitioner no.2 &

there is no dispute regarding the same.

c. That the Petitioner no.1 unconditionally agree that the custody of minor son -

Yuvraj will permanently remain with the Petitioner no.2 and the Petitioner no.1

will not claim any visitation right or custody of minor son - Yuvraj at any point of

time in future and if any such claim is made, then the same shall not be tenable.

d. That the Petitioner no.1 unconditionally agrees that she shall not file any

proceedings for visitation right or custody of minor son - Yuvraj at any point of

time in future and if any such proceedings are filed, then the same shall not be

tenable.

18
 e. That the Petitioner no.1 hereby gives her consent and shall not object in any manner

whatsoever, if the Petitioner no.2 takes their son Yuvraj anywhere abroad, either

temporarily or permanently. The Petitioner no.2 shall have unfettered right of VISA

for his minor son Yuvraj. The Petitioner no.1 declares that the Petitioner no.2

alone shall have exclusive and unfettered rights, privileges and control over their minor

son Yuvraj at all times and the Petitioner no.1 shall have no right whatsoever to

cause any hindrance or raise any objection in any regard. That the Petitioner no.1

declares that she shall have no right whatsoever to raise any objection or claim any

visitation right or custody of minor son Yuvraj before any Court of Law or any

forum or any authority at any point of time in future and if any such claim is made,

then the same shall not be tenable.

f. The Petitioner no.2 unconditionally agrees that he shall permanently keep the

custody of his minor son - Yuvraj as his father and natural guardian.

g. That the Petitioner no.1 for herself declares before this Hon’ble Court that she

waives her right to claim any amount towards permanent alimony, arrears of

maintenance, future maintenance or any such amount from the Petitioner no.2 at

any point of time in future and if any such claim is made, then the same shall not

be tenable.

h. That the Petitioners jointly agree that they shall withdraw / compromise /

compound all pending Civil / Criminal litigations filed against each other and

against the family members of the Petitioners. The Petitioners further agree that

they shall not file any litigation against each other or against their family members

at any point of time in future and a decree for divorce by mutual consent may be

passed after proof of disposal of all pending cases.

19
 i. The Petitioners clearly agree to withdraw / compromise / compound and get the

following cases disposed of :

j. It is submitted that the Petitioner No.1 has filed an application for custody of minor
son – Yuvraj under Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 being Civil Misc. Application

No. 100 of 2016 before this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the Petitioner

No.2 has also filed a petition for divorce being HMP No. 2191 of 2014 before this

Hon'ble Court.

k. It is most respectfully submitted that, on the date when the evidence is taken in the

present petition before this Hon’ble Court the Petitioner No. 1 shall withdraw Civil

Misc. Application No. 100 of 2016 filed before this Hon’ble Court. It is further

submitted that Petitioner No.2 shall also withdraw HMP No. 2191 of 2014 filed

before this Hon’ble Court.

l. With regard to the aspect of maintenance/ alimony, the Petitioner No. 1

permanently waives her right of maintenance/ alimony from Petitioner no. 2 and or

his family, and in future also shall not claim any sort of alimony/maintenance from

them.

m. The petitioner No.1 undertakes to the Hon’ble court that the petitioner No.1 shall

not invite any order regarding maintenance or alimony and a separate right of

residence for her from petitioner no.2 and hereby relieve each other from any past,

present and future responsibility of maintenance, alimony and/or right of residence

towards each other.

n. It is also submitted that the present petitioners will not claim any future

maintenance or alimony from each other under any law. Further the present

petitioners herein will not have any right, title or interest in the property, movable

or immovable of the other party and/or claim any right, title, interest in selfacquired

20
 or ancestral movable or immovable properties wherein petitioner No.2 has any

right, title or interest under any law and petitioner no.1 not be entitled to receive

any amount towards her maintenance, expenses, alimony under section 125

of Criminal Procedure Code, Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act,

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner no.1

will not be entitled to any other amount under any head and for any expense which

shall also include medical expenses as maintenance and or alimony under any law.

10. The cause of action for this petition has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court on different dates viz. on the date when the marriage between the parties to the

petition was solemnized, on the dates when disputes cropped up between the parties to

the petition and finally on the date when both the petitioners started living separately

from each other as husband & wife.

11. The Hon’ble Court has got territorial jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the present

petition as the petitioner no.1 is residing at Ahmedabad.

12. It is submitted that this petition has been filed without exercising any threat, coercion,

undue influence or misrepresentation by each other and both the petitioners with their

free will and volition have filed this petition for dissolution of their marriage.

13. It is, therefore, prayed that;

a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dissolve the marriage of the petitioners

Krishna Vivek Jarecha and Vivek Satishchandra Jarecha solemnized at Ahmedabad

on 11/12/2010.

b. The Hon’ble court be pleased to grant permanent custody of the minor son Yuvraj

to petitioner No.2.

c. Any other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case be granted.

21
14. This being the matrimonial petition, a court fee stamp of Rs. ___ /- is affixed on the

memo of this petition.

15. The address of the petitioners as shown in the cause title of the main petition is true and

is in conformity with the provisions of Order VI Rule 14-A of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.

PLACE: AHMEDABAD DATE:

____________________

PETITIONER NO. 1

____________________

PETITIONER NO. 2

22
 4) CUSTODY OF CHILD APPLICATION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT AT

AHMEDABAD

CMA NO. OF 2019

Applicant:

VENKATESH MOHANAN SHENOY

AGE: 41 YEARS, RELIGION: HINDU

OCCUPATION: BUSINESS

RESIDING AT: 27/B; MADHUKUNJ SOCIETY, NEAR OLD RAILWAY

CROSSING; BEHIND KASHIVISWANATH TEMPLE: MANINAGAR

EAST: AHMEDABAD -380008

VERSUS

Opponent:

NAMITHA VENKATESH SHENOY

D/O

AGE: 35 YEARS, RELIGION: HINDU

OCCUPATION: SERVICE

RESIDING AT: 18; “PADMAM HOUSE” C/O S S PADMAKUMARI;

23
WEST KADUNGALLOOR; KUNNAKALA ROAD: NEAR VRINDAVAN
BRICKS BUS STOP; ALUVA; DISTRICT ERNAKULAM,

KERALA – 683110.

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 9 AND 25 OF THE GUARDIANS

AND WARDS ACT, 1890 AND OTHER RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF

LAW.

THE APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS AS UNDER:

1. It is most respectfully submitted that the marriage between the Applicant and the

Opponent was solemnized on 01/06/2008 As per Hindu rites and rituals at Gayathri

kalyana Mandapam, Ernakulam. This said marriage was an arranged marriage and from

the marriage the parties to the petition have two children. The elder son Aditya Shenoy

was born on 03/09/09 at Ahmedabad and the younger daughter Pragya shenoy was born

on 17/01/19 at Ahmedabad.

2. It is submitted that at present the custody of the elder son Aditya is with the Applicant at

Ahmedabad and the custody of the minor daughter Pragnya is with the Opponent who is

currently residing at Ernakulam, Kerala. The elder son Aditya who is 10 years of age is

studying at Delhi Public School at Gandhinagar.

3. It is submitted that the Applicant had earlier filed a petition for divorce and custody and

the present Opponent had undertaken that she will not cause any kind of physical/mental

cruelty on the Applicant and the minor son Aditya and shall behave properly and shall

not repeat her mistakes and therefore the said petitions were withdrawn by the Applicant.

It is further submitted that thereafter also the present Opponent continued with the

24
 physical and mental assault on the Applicant and the minor children and therefore the

present Application is filed on the new cause of action that has arisen.

4. It is submitted that the Applicants qualifications are_____ and is operating his business

of raw materials supplement from his office that is at his residence only. The Opponent

is a well-educated lady who has studied medicine and has worked at numerous hospitals

as a physician assistant.

5. It is submitted that this is a case where there has been not only constant mental

harassment but also physical harassment by the Opponent to the Applicant, the minor

children and the Applicants mother. The minor son Aditya was born soon after the

marriage and the physical harassment to the Applicant as well as the minor son was

constant. All throughout there have been instances when the Applicant has been

constrained to file police complaints because of the behavior of the Opponent and the

Opponent has always given false assurances and promises of behaving well and therefore

the said complaints have not been persuaded but the behavior of the respondent has never

changed.

6. The Applicant thinking that a change in environment would be better shifted to two

different rented premises on the saying of the opponent but yet there was no change in

the behavior. Sometime in the year 2015 the Applicant was thrown out of his own house

by the Opponent and so had to go and stay at his mother's house. Meanwhile the

Opponent packed her things and in some weeks without informing the Applicant ran

away with the minor child and did not inform the Applicant about her whereabouts.

7. The Applicant filed a missing persons report in June 2015 at _______ police station. On

29th June it came to be known to the Applicant that she had run away to her village in

Ernakulam as the brother of the opponent called the Applicant to inform him that she was

hitting the minor son. The Opponents neighbor at Ernakulam even called the police as

25
 daily from 9:00 pm to 11:00 pm at night the neighbors could hear cries from where the

opponent was residing with the minor son Aditya. The Opponent received a call from

Child Line KSRTC Bus Stand, Ernakulum about a complaint lodged by someone on the

Opponent hitting the minor son. The Applicant immediately rushed to Ernakulam but the

Opponent refused to give the Applicant the child and so the Applicant had to a petition

for custody of the child at the Hon’ble Family Court at Ernakulam. It is further submitted

that the Opponent enrolled the minor son Aditya in a school in her village and she started

working in the city where she would return late at night by 11 PM.

8. It is submitted that the minor son aditya who has all throughout studied in a prestigious

institute in a big city like Ahmedabad was suddenly put in a school in a village and so

he had a very hard time to adjust. During the pendency of the said petition at Kerala the

Opponent did not even allow the Applicant to meet the son. She told the Applicant that

the entire village will beat the Applicant if he tries to enter the village. It is submitted

that the Opponent constantly used to hit the minor child Aditya there as well so the

neighbors had called the police and a complaint was also lodged at the child Welfare

Committee.

9. The Applicant has come to know that the Child Welfare committee even started

investigating in this matter and the Applicant also went to the Child Welfare Committee

at Kerala. The Applicant had also come to know that the child welfare committee went

to the school of the minor son and enquired about his performance at school. His school

teachers and principal told the Child Welfare Committee that the minor son Aditya used

to be very silent and non-responsive at school. The Child Welfare committee then asked

the Applicant who was present at Mumbai at that time to come along to the school with

them. The minor son Aditya seeing the Applicant at school became very happy and ran

towards him and did not want to leave him and so the Child Welfare Committee gave

26
 a notification to the school to allow the minor son to meet the Applicant during lunch

break at school whenever he was in Kerala.

10. The Applicant craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to produce a copy of this

notification by the Child Welfare Committee at Kerala as and when required. The

Applicant then started going to Kerala many times a month to meet the minor son Aditya

at school during his lunch hours. The Applicant craves the leave of this Hon’ble to

produce a copy of all his tickets from the period of 2015 to 2017 when he used to go to

Ernakulam to meet the son as and when required. The Applicant is ready to send

witness summons against the concerned authority to get the report of the Child Welfare

Committee at Kerala at the time of oral evidence.

11. It is submitted that during the pendency of the case in the year 2017 the Opponent met

the Applicant and gave him false promises that she would not beat the child furthermore

or incur any violence on the Applicant and his mother and that she would return to

Ahmedabad with the Applicant and the minor son. The Applicant thus keeping in mind

the welfare of the minor son Aditya withdrew the petition of child custody from the

Honorable Family court of Ernakulam and the Applicant returned to Ahmedabad with

the Opponent and the Minor son Aditya.

12. It is submitted that from the period between 2017 and 2019 even though there was not a

lot of change in the behavior of the Opponent the Applicant for the sake of the minor son

Aditya did not take any coercive steps. It is submitted that in April 2018 the Opponent

got pregnant. The Applicant became very happy thinking that some sense would finally

be prevailed in the Opponent and she would finally become a good mother to Aditya.

The Applicant was also happy thinking that Aditya would have a sibling and come out

of the mental trauma that had been caused on him due to his mother that is the Opponent.

27
13. It is further submitted that Aditya who was 8 years of age at that time became very happy

knowing that he is going to have a younger sibling. The Applicant used to take care of

the Opponent all the time and also used to look after Aditya. The Applicant who used to

operate his office from his residence only could easily manage to look after Aditya when

the Opponent was pregnant.

14. It is submitted that in October 2018 the Opponent had a big fight with the mother of the

Applicant where she entered the house premises of the mother-in-law and locked the

door from inside and started throwing everything around and told her that she wanted

her house and wanted to combine both the houses to make it into a grand luxurious house

and that the mother of the Applicant should go and find a new house to stay in. When

the mother of the Applicant asked her to go out of her house she started throwing things

at the Applicants mother who is a senior citizen and told her that she will do as she

pleases and that police cannot do anything as she (the opponent was pregnant) and thus

she can take advantage of the situation and behave as she pleases.

15. The Applicants mother who was physically hurt had no other option but to call with me.

Nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part thereof is false.

16. The Applicant hereby declares that present petition has not been filed in collusion with

the respondent.

17. The Applicant has affixed appropriate court fees stamp on this application.

18. The name and address of the parties are true and correct and the same are as per Order 6

Rule 14A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

19. A separate affidavit in support of this application is filed.

20. Vakalatnama and copies of the other side are attached with this application.

28
 5) AGREEMENT OF AMALGAMATION OF ONE COMPANY
WITH ANOTHER.

This agreement is made on this 5th day of June 2019 between Axix Blade Co. Ltd., a company

registered under the Companies Act 1956 and having its registered office at Ahmedabad

(hereinafter called the vendor) of the One Part and Xixi Yulk & Co. Ltd., a company registered

under the Companies Act 1956 and having its registered office at Surat (hereinafter called the

purchaser) of the Other Part.

Whereas the vendor is a company limited by shares with a capital of Rs. 50 lakhs divided into

50,000 shares of Rs. 100 each.

And whereas the vendor has under its Memorandum of Association the necessary rights and

powers to sell, transfer or convey the business of the company in whole or in part with all its

undertakings, assets, pending contracts and other rights whatsoever for adequate consideration

in cash, shares, debentures or such other securities. And whereas the purchaser is a company

limited by shares with a share capital of Rs. 100 lakhs divided into 1,00,000 shares of Rs. 100

each.

And whereas all the shares of purchaser have been allotted and paid-up and the purchaser is

authorized under its Memorandum of Association to increase its share capital.

And whereas the purchaser has the power under its Memorandum of Association to purchase

the business of any other company similar to the one carried on by it as a running concern with

all its assets, rights and liabilities whatsoever.

And whereas the vendor has agreed to amalgamate with the purchaser and it has passed

necessary resolution for that purpose on 3rd May 2019 and the purchaser has also passed the

necessary resolution on for taking over the business of the vendor with all its undertakings,

assets and liabilities.

Now these presents’ witnesses and the parties hereby agree as follows:

29
1. The purchaser shall forthwith pass the necessary resolution to increase its share capital

to Rs. 150 lakhs by the creation and issue of 50,000 shares of the value of Rs. 100 each

ranking pari passu in all respects with its present shares.

2. The vendor shall sell and the purchaser shall purchase and take over the entire business

of the vendor with all its undertakings, rights, assets and liabilities whatsoever with effect

from the7th day of June 2019 for consideration of Rs. 60 lakhs agreed to be paid to the

vendor in the manner as follows:

A. Rs. 10 lakhs in cash; and the balance

B. Rs. 50 lakhs by issue of shares to the vendor

3. Or to such persons as the vendor may direct, which shares shall be treated as fully paidup.

4. As for the 10th day of June 2019 the purchaser shall be entitled to the business of the

vendor with all its undertakings, rights, securities and liabilities whatsoever and wherever

situate and shall thenceforward be entitled to carry on the business, realize the securities

without any let or hindrance from the vendor company or any one claiming through or

under it.

5. Up to the above said day of when the business of the vendor is taken over as above the

vendor shall carry on its business for and on behalf of the purchaser.

6. On or before the expiry of days from the date of taking over of business as above the

vendor shall deliver to the purchaser all title deeds of the properties and the premises

belonging to it along with an abstract report regarding its title to the properties and

premises. The defects, if any, to the title of the vendor to the said properties and premises

shall be intimated to the vendor in writing within 3 days after receipt of the title deeds

and abstract of title and if no objection is lodged within the time prescribed as above the

purchaser must be deemed to have accepted the title.

30
7. The purchase shall be completed on 12th day of June 2019 at the office of the purchaser's

Solicitors when the purchaser shall pay the said sum of Rs. 10 lakhs in cash or Bank Draft

and shall hand over the Certificates for Rs. 50 lakhs of the said shares and thereupon the

VENDOR and all other necessary parties shall execute all such deeds and do such things

as may be reasonably required for vesting all the properties agreed to be sold in the

purchaser.

8. The entire staff of the vendor company shall be taken over and maintained by the

purchaser company with effect from the aforesaid date of taking over on the same terms

and conditions as those are at present prevailing.

9. For the purpose of stamp duty the value of goodwill, fittings and fixtures, book debts,

contracts, patents, designs and trademarks, belonging to the vendor shall be taken as Rs.

10 lakhs and the value of all other properties of the vendor hereby agreed to be sold at

Rs. 50 lakhs.

In witness whereof the parties hereto executed these presents on the day, month and year first

above-written.

Signed, sealed and delivered

By Mr. Punit Sharma pursuant to Board Resolution Vendor

Dated 5th June 2019 of the vendor

Axix Blade Co. Ltd. in the presence of:

Signed, sealed and delivered

By Mr. Riya Malhotra pursuant to Board Resolution

Dated 5th June 2019 of Xixi Yulk & Co. Ltd. Purchaser

31
 6) AGREEMENT FOR REDUCTION OF SHARE CAPITAL.

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT GUJARAT, AT AHMEDABAD

Company Petition No. 654 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

LAUREN CO. LTD.,

HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:

NAVARANGURA,

AHMEDABAD-380 025 …PETITIONER

PETITION UNDER SECTION 101 FOR CONFIRMING THE REDUCTION OF

SHARE CAPITAL

The petition of LAUREN Co., Ltd. the petitioner herein Sheweth:

1. The above named company, the petitioner herein (hereinafter 'called the company') was

registered on the 3rd March 2015 under the provisions of the [Companies Act, 1956] as

a company limited by shares/limited by guarantee with a share capital.

2. The Registered Office of the company is situated at Ahmedabad.

3. The objects of the company are [manufacture of bicycles, etc.] and other objects set forth

in the memorandum of association thereof.

4. The capital of the company is Rs 10,00,000 divided into 10,000 shares of Rs100 each, of

which 5,00,000 shares have been issued and have been fully paid-up or credited as fully

paid-up.

5. Shortly after its incorporation, the company commenced business, and it has since been

and is still carrying on business.

32
6. By article (s) 134 & 156 of the articles of association of the company, it is provided that

the company may, from time to time, by special resolution reduce its capital in any

manner permitted by law.

7. The accumulated losses of the Company as on 31st March 2018, which amounted to Rs.

2,00,00,000, wiped off substantial net worth of the Company.

8. Even though the company has been making profits in some prior years still the carry

forward losses on balance sheet is making difficult for the company to either raise new

resources for expansion and modernization nor it can share the profits of the company

with its shareholders.

9. The company is therefore unable to raise any finance either from the capital markets or

financial institutions whether in the form of equity or debt, to undertake business

activities on a larger scale.

10. In view of the above, the Company is seeking to reconstruct /restructure its capital by

way of writing off its accumulated business loss against the reduction of its paid up

capital which is not represented by available assets.

11. The petitioner therefore prays:-

a) That the reduction of capital resolved on by the special resolution set out in

paragraph 8 above be confirmed;

b) That to this end all inquiries and directions necessary and proper be, made and

given;

c) That the proposed minute be approved; and

d) That such further or other orders be made in the premises as to the Court shall seem

fit.

33
PLACE: AHMEDABAD _______________________________

DATE: ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

34
 7) PETITION FOR DIVORCE U/S. 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,

1955.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

PUNE DISTRICT: PUNE

Marriage Petition No. 176/ 2020

SHRI DR. RAVI SHARMA

AGED 33 YEARS

RESIDENCE OF A 112/2

SHALIMAR APARTMENTS, THALTEJ

AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT
PIN: 380045 … PETITIONER

VERSUS

SMT.DR. RITU SHARMA

AGED 30 YEARS

RESIDENCE OF C 34/4

SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY, AMBAVADI

AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

…
PIN: 380023 RESPONDENT

A PETITION FOR DIVORCE U/S 13 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

35
 1955.

The petitioner above named submits this petition, praying to state as follows:

1. That the petitioner was married to the respondent at Gulbarga on 23rd February 2019

according to the Hindu religion, rites and ceremonies.

2. That the respondent, prior to the marriage was known by her maiden name as Miss Ritu

Kumar, while there is no change resulted by the marriage in the name of the petitioner.

3. That the petitioner being the ordinary resident of the Ahmedabad City and having

habitation, at the address given in the title part, after the said marriage, the respondent

accompanied the petitioner to Ahmedabad.

4. That, however, right from the beginning, the respondent was reluctant to reside at

Ahmedabad and not so responsive to cohabit with the petitioner, and every now and then,

on one or the other pretext, she used to go to the place of her parents and stay there for

long stretches of time. Having come to Ahmedabad for the first time, on 23rd February

2019, the respondent went back to her parental home immediately on 28th February 2019

and thereafter, she did not turn up till 10th March 2019, and then also stayed with the

petitioner only for a period of about ten days, and on 21st March 2019, she went back to

her parents. Thereafter, the respondent did not turn up till 4th April 2019, and having

come to Ahmedabad, after such a time, she lived at Ahmedabad only up to 10 odd days,

and again, on 14th April 2019, she left Ahmedabad for her parental home, and, thereafter,

she has never turned up as yet.

5. That during this period, every time, the respondent pleaded some or the other excuse to

go from Ahmedabad earlyand then sent messages and letters advancing lame excuses for

her prolonged stays at her parental home, and, thus, right from the beginning, the

respondent did never realize her marital obligations, nor did she ever bother to consider

36
 the feelings of the petitioner and the members of his family for the reasons best known

to herself.

6. That the petitioner is a young man practicing medical profession, and the very idea of

marrying the respondent was that, if both of them being medical practitioners start a joint

practice, they can do something in life with a greater advantage.

7. That, however, despite all the educational background, the respondent had been so

nonconsiderate and negligible towards the planning of the future and establishing a joint

practice that she has done everything to disturb the mental peace and well-being of the

petitioner and nothing to plan the future joint life.

8. That the petitioner and the members of his family, despite all these responsible defects

on the part of the respondent and in the hope that the respondent by herself or the

members of her family would realize the situation and one day or the other, the wiser

counsel would prevail and she would behave in a more responsible way and discharge

her matrimonial obligations properly. However, all these hopes proved to be in vain.

9. That the respondent, right from the beginning, appears to have some plans of harassing

the petitioner, and this would be clear from the letters, which she had written either to

this petitioner or his father, and from these letters, it would appear that though the

petitioner and the members of his family were eager to have her back and were all along

inviting her to be at Ahmedabad, the respondent was under the pretext of innocence and

education writing such letters and pleading such excuses for her delayed stays there that

from them, the petitioner and the members of his family became apprehensive about the

true intentions of the respondent, and, hence, the petitioner attempted to persuade the

respondent to resume cohabitation and besides writing letters had deputed his relations

to visit the respondent and her parents.

37
10. That accordingly, the petitioner's paternal uncle and the petitioner's mother's sister's son,

viz. Shri Upesh Bakshi and RahulThan, and these relations had gone to the respondent's

father's house, and they saw the respondent's brother and mother. However, though the

respondent was very much present there, she refused to see these relations, and the

mother and the brother did not tell these relations of the petitioner that nothing could be

done by them in the matter, and they would convey the petitioner's message to the

respondent, and, thus, in a most indecent manner, the respondent had sent back the said

relations. Yet, the petitioner did not lose either head or heart, and with a view to trying

again, the respondent deputed the abovementioned two persons and his brother, Dr. Ravi

Sharma and two others.

11. That these people visited the place of the respondent's father, on 4TH May 2019

However, they were told that the respondent was out of station, and the parents and the

brother of the respondent were not in a position either to tell her whereabouts, or the time

when she would be back, and hence, these relations had to come back to Ahmedabad.

12. That it is the reliable information of the petitioner that the respondent lives with her

parents only, but the respondent as well as her parents and brother were playing these

tricks and telling lies just to thwart the sincere attempts of the petitioner for cohabitation.

13. That helpless in the matter, yet sincere in his intentions and attempts, the petitioner,

through his lawyer, sent a notice, on 10th May 2019, to the respondent, a copy whereof

was sent to the respondent under certificate, besides the original being sent by registered

post acknowledgement due. The copies sent under certificate of posting were duly

delivered to the respondent. However, she had not accepted the notice sent by registered

post acknowledgement due. And accordingly, the envelope was received back with postal

remarks "Addressee out of station", and in the situation, the said notice was again

dispatched in the similar manner and received back with the similar remarks, and, thus,

38
 this is clear that the respondent having already learnt that the petitioner had taken the

matter seriously and was inclined to take further action, if the respondent were not to

resume cohabitation, the respondent has evaded the service of the said notice.

14. That the petitioner had all along been very kind, sincere and loving husband. However,

the respondent did not at all respond or reciprocate these feelings dutifully, and during

the total period of matrimony, the respondent has hardly lived at the petitioner's place for

a period of sixteen days, and since14h April 2019, she has deserted the petitioner, and

hence, this petition.

15. That the petitioner's father had made for the respondent ornaments weighing about 65

gms, and the respondent had taken all these ornaments with herself, and the petitioner

learns that presently she is employed as a doctor drawing a handsome salary, and the

respondent’s father and brother are rich people, and perhaps, it is the wealth and the

means available to her that she has been deserting the petitioner.

16. That the parties, after the said marriage, last resided together at Ahmedabad within the

local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court, and hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction

to try and decide this petition.

17. That the parties hereto have been residing separately for the last more than one year, and

hence, this petition is maintainable.

18. That this petition being chargeable with a fixed rate of court fee, the same is paid

herewith.

19. That the petitioner, therefore, prays that –

a) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent be dissolved by a decree

of divorce.

b) If the Hon'ble Court were to decline the relief prayed for in clause (a) above,

alternatively, the petitioner prays that a decree for judicial separation be passed,

39
 and;

c) Any other orders in the interest of justice are kindly to be passed.

PLACE: PUNE

DATE:

____________________

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

VERIFICATION

I, Dr. ___, the present petitioner, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of

this petition in paras 1 to 19 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and

so I have signed hereunder. Signed on ___day of 2020.

Identified by me

_____________________

__________________

PETITIONER

40
 UNIT: 3&4.1 DRAFTING UNDER INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY LAW AND MISCELLANEOUS

41
 1) QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE FIR U/S. 482 OF CrPC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: MEHSANA

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. OF 2018

Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

for quashing and setting aside the
FIR being I CR No. 125 of 2018 registered with ‘B’
Division Police Station, District Mehsana;
And In the matter between;

Thakor Zarinaben Nagjibhai

Age: 45 years, Gender: Female
R/o: 41, Mahadev Bungalows,
Opposite Star Lines, Highway,
Mehsana ...Petitioner
(Accused Person as per the FIR)

Versus

1. State of Gujarat
(Notice to be served on the
Ld Public Prosecutor
Gujarat High Court,
Sola, Ahmedabad)

2. Yatin Nagjibhai Thakor Age: 35 years, Gender:

Male
42
 R/o: Avni Bhavan, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad …Respondents
(Respondent No.2 Original Complainant)

TO,
THE HONORABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE OTHER HONORABLE
JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT
OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD.

The humble petition of the petitioner above

named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:

1. The Petitioner herein prefers the present application under section 482 of code of
Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting the FIR being I CR No. 125 of 2018 lodged at

‘B’ Division Police Station, Mehsana, for the offences punishable u/s 406, 465, 467, 468

and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The copy of the FIR being I CR No. 125 of 2018

dated 09.07.2018 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A.

2. The brief facts as culled out from the FIR at Annexure-A are as follows:

2.1 That the present FIR has been lodged by one Shri. Yatin Nagjibhai Thakor

(hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) inter alia alleging that the grandfather

of the Complainant and the Petitioner herein had purchased one Shop No. 7, situated

at Rajendra Estate through registered sale-deed.

2.2 It is further alleged that the Petitioner herein has by hiding the name of the

grandfather of the Complainant in the registered sale-deed, had taken photocopy of

the same as if the Petitioner herein is the only purchaser and on the basis of the said
43
 Xerox, got the property transferred in her name by producing forged documents in

the City Survey Office. It is under these circumstances the present FIR has been

lodged.

3. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the step-mother of the Complainant.

4. That on 01.01.2005, the Petitioner has purchased the impugned property by way of

registered sale deed executed at the Sub-Registrar Office, Mehsana. It is further

submitted that the Petitioner has paid the consideration Rs. 4,40,000/- (INR Four Lakhs

Forty Thousand only) by cash. The copy of the registered sale deed dated 01.01.2005 is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure B.

5. The Petitioner submits that in Civil Misc. Application No. 122/2017, dated 15.04.2017,

a settlement has been arrived at between the Petitioner and the Complainant. The Copy

of the settlement deed executed between the respective parties is annexed hereto and

marked as Annexure-C.

6. The Petitioner begs to prefer the present application for the quashing and setting aside
the

FIR on the following amongst other grounds that may be argued at the time of hearing:

GROUNDS

A. Because, the Petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case and the Petitioner

is a totally innocent and a law abiding citizen.

B. Because, it is evident from the material facts on record that the civil proceedings

between the parties has been settled vide Settlement agreement executed between the

parties dated 15.04.2017. In light of the same, it is submitted that the impugned FIR

is an arm twisting tactic of the Complainant and is lodged with mala fide intent of the

Complainant.

C. Because, the Petitioner has purchased the impugned property by way of registered

sale deed executed at the Sub-Registrar Office, Mehsana. It is further submitted that
44
 the Petitioner has paid the consideration INR 4,40,000/- (INR Four Lakhs Forty

Thousand only) by cash.

D. Because, even if the entire FIR is accepted without any rebuttal, then also no offences

as alleged has been made out.

E. Because, there are no allegations mentioned in the FIR to constitute an offence, there

is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to

prove the charge against the Petitioner. In such circumstances also, the impugned FIR

is required to be quashed and set aside.

F. Because, the allegations mentioned in the FIR taken at their face value and accepted

in their entity, do not constitute the offence alleged against the petitioners. In such

circumstances also, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside.

G. Because, where the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion

that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused.

H. Because, the impugned FIR registered against the Petitioner with mala-fide intentions

with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to

spite him due to private and personal grudge.

I. Because, the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the FIR and permitting

such FIR to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal

trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

7. That the present Petitioner has not filed any other application either before this Hon’ble

Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or before any other court on the subject

matter of this application.

8. That the Petitioner craves leave to amend, alter, delete or modify any of the foregoing

grounds as and when necessary.

45
 9. In view of the above, the Petitionermost respectfully prays as under that:

A. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present application;

B. Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the FIR being I CR No. 125 of

2018 lodged at ‘B’ Division Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable

u/s406, 465, 467, 468 and 471of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dated 09.07.2018.

C. Your Lordships may be pleased, pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this

petition, to stay the further proceedings of the FIR being I CR No. 125 of 2018 lodged

at ‘B’ Division Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable u/s 406, 465, 467,

468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dated 09.07.2018.

D. Your Lordships may grant any other and further relief(s) as deemed just and proper in

the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE

THE APPLICANT AS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Place: Ahmedabad _______________________

Date: .08.2018 Advocate for the Petitioner

AFFIDAVIT

I, ZarinabenNagjibhaiThakor, Age: 45 years, Female, R/o, 41, Mahadev Bungalows, Opp.

Starline Highway, District Mehsana, the Petitioner herein state and declare on oath and

solemnly affirm as under that;

The contents of the Para no. 01 to of this application are read over to me and explained

to me and the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. And Para is

the prayer clause which also I believe it to be true and correct.

46
 Solemnly affirmed at ____________ on this ________ day of August, 2018.

Deponent

Identified and
Explained by me

(Advocate’s Clerk)

47
 2) APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO INFORMATION

FORM A

APPLICATION FORM FOR OBTAINING INFORMATION

To,

Public Information Officer, SPMCIL

16th Floor,

Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan,

Janpath,

New Delhi - 110001.

I want to obtain following information from you under the Right to Information Act,

2005 the details are as under:

(1) Applicant’s Name: Ms. Kinjal Dave

(2) Full Address of the applicant: Aditya Patel & Associates, Advocates Ganesh

Meradian, A Block Second Floor,

Opp. High Court, Sola.

Ahmedabad - 380015,

Phone No. 9824516577

Email : [email protected]

(3) Specific particulars / details of Information :

(1) Kindly provide the information in which year “GUJARAT STATE” is

printed and implemented on the left side of the Government Non Judicial

Stamp

Paper of Rs.100/- denomination.

48
 (2) Kindly provide the information of the characteristics or symbols or

design view in Non-Judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.100/- printed and prevailing

in year 1964.

(4) I enclose herewith crossed Indian Postal Order of Rs.20/- in the name of PIO,

SPMCIL bearing No. 03G 277167 towards application fees.

(5) I hereby declare that I am a Citizen of India.

(6) I hereby declare that above details are true the best of my knowledge and belief.

PLACE: AHMEDABAD

DATE:

_________________________

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT

TELEPHONE NUMBER

(OFFICE)

49
 3) SUIT FOR OBTAINING SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE

BEFORE THE HONBLE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE AT

AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD

CASE NO. 1234 OF 2020

IN THE GOODS OF (LAKHSYA BHARADWAJ, SON OF RAMAN

BHARADWAJ, AGED 60 YEARS, ANAND NAGAR, NIRNAY NAGAR,

AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT.)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO

DEBTS AND SECURITIES OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF RITIKA BHARADWAJ SOLE WIDOW

OF THE DECEASED OF NO. 1234/2018

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That petitioner is the sole widow of the deceased.

2. That deceased named above hereinafter referred to being the said deceased who had been

during his lifetime till his death permanently residing and living at said premises Anand

Nagar, Nirnay Nagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat within the jurisdiction of this court and was

by nationality and faith a Hindu citizen of India , expired intestate on the 26th

day of November, 2018 at his above stated place of residence.

50
 3. The deceased, at the time of his expiry, left only his widow, the applicant and none

else as his successor per Hindu Succession Act 1956.

4. That at the time of his expiry the dead left no son/daughter/father or any grandson or

granddaughter by any predeceased son or daughter or any great-grandson or any

greatgranddaughter by any predeceased grandson and granddaughter or any widow of any

predeceased son or predeceased grandson or great-grandson or any other relation given

in class I and class II of the Schedule per s. 8 of the said Act.

5. That the dead left at the time of death inter alia assets on which succession certificate is

been prayed for to the market value of Rs. 1 crore. A whole and complete schedule of said

assets is hereunto enclosed and marked "A".

6. That industries and close searches were under taken by petitioner to find out if dead left

any will or disposed otherwise relating to estates, credits , and assets but no such will has

been found up till now. Petitioner, therefore, believes/bear reasons to believe that he

expired intestate. No letter of administration has been issued relating to property of dead.

No application for letter of management or succession certificate is waiting decision in

this court or in any other court.

7. That petitioner being same and alike person stated as the sole widow of the dead and she

being interested in managing the property of dead.

8. It being clear from facts/circumstances hereinbefore mentioned that there being no

obstruction per s. 370 of Indian Succession Act 1925 or any other enactments of said Act

or any other provision against the grant of Succession Certificate hereunder prayed to

petitioner nor to the legality thereof when allowed.

9. That petitioner submits and states that in aforesaid circumstances she alone bear right to

the grant of Succession Certificate relating to said assets payable to the property of

deceased.

51
 10. That ad valorem duty of Rs. 1000 payable relating to grant of Succession Certificate

hereunder prayed for has been paid.

11. That this application is made bona fide.

12. Petitioner, therefore, prays for ordering per below terms:

a. Succession certificate may be allowed to petitioner relating to assets, properties

with credits specified in Schedule "A" hereto empowering to collect and/or receive

and/or realise the same inclusive all interests accrued thereon and to sell and/or

negotiate and/or deal with the same without any impediment.

b. Petitioner be exempted from presenting any security on that account.

c. And petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pay.

VERIFICATION

I, Smt. ________ sole widow of the RITIKA BHARADWAJ named above resident at Anand

Nagar, Nirnay Nagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat do hereby say and declare that the statements

having in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the above petition and also the particulars

contained in Schedule 1 including all figures, are true to my best knowledge and those

contained in paragraphs 9 and 11 hereof are my presentation to this Learned Court.

PLACE: AHMEDABAD

DATE:

_____________________

DEPONENT

52
 4) DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF PATENT

THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT is made at AHMEDABAD on this 10th day of March

between Mr ABHILASH GANGULY, S/o Saurabh Ganguly, Residing at Nr. IOC Petrol

Pump, Opp. Auda Garden, Judges Bunglow Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380054,

and Mr SUNIL CHATTERJEE, Residing at E-504 Shivalik Apartments, Beside Union Bank

of India, Ashram Road, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380013, and Mr SHALIN

BANERJEE, R/O Saint Xavier's School Road, Sarvottam Nagar Society, Navrangpura,

Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380014 , carrying on business in partnership in the name of M/s

PLATONIC PHARMA Hereinafter referred to as 'the Assignors' of the One Part and M/s

PLATONIC PHARMA, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its

registered office at AHMEDABAD Hereinafter referred to as the `Assignee' of the Other Part;

WHEREAS

1. The Assignors own a patent in the manufacture of an article known in the market of

Pharmaceuticals and the said patent is duly registered under the Patents Act 1970 and

which is broadly described in the Schedule hereunder written.

2. The Assignors have promoted a company being the Assignee herein and have agreed to

transfer their partnership business including the right to the said Patent to the Assignee in

consideration of and in the manner provided in a separate agreement between the

Assignors.

3. The Assignee has now requested the Assignor to assign the said Patent and all rights

appurtenant thereto to the Assignee which the Assignors have agreed to do.

NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH that pursuant to the said Agreement and in consideration

of a sum of Rs 20 lakhs paid to the Assignors partly in cash and partly in the form of the shares

of the Assignee of the face value of the amount of Rs_ 20 lakhs before the execution of these

53
 presents (receipt whereof the Assignors hereby admit) they the Assignors as beneficial owners

of the said patent broadly described in the Schedule hereunder written, hereby assign to the

Assignee the said patent which has been granted to the Assignors by the Government of India

under the Patents Act, 1970, together with the Assignors' full right of action, powers and

benefits arising, accruing or belonging to the Assignors in connection with the said patent:

TO HOLD the same unto the Assignee absolutely and the Assignors do and each of them doth

hereby covenant with the Assignee that:

1. The Assignors have full right and absolute authority to assign the said patent in the manner

aforesaid.

2. The patent is free and clear from all encumbrances and claims and the Assignors shall

keep the Assignee indemnified against any such claim.

3. The Assignee shall be entitled to hold and use the said patent exclusively so long as the

patent exists and earn and enjoy the profits or income there from; peaceably and without

any objection or interruption on the part of the Assignors or persons claiming under them.

4. The Assignors will execute any further deed as may be required for further and more

perfectly assuring the said patent unto the Assignee.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Assignors have put their hands the day and year first

hereinabove written.

The Schedule above referred signed and delivered by the within named Assignors

(1) ABHILASH GANGULY

(2) SUNIL CHATTERJEE and

(3) SHALIN BANERJEE being

The partners of M/s PLATONIC PHARMA

In presence of HIRALAL UPADYAY and USHA UPADHYAY.

54
 5) DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT

THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT is made at Ahmadabad on this day of 2019 between Mr.

Babu lal residing at o Empire House, 3rd Floor, 214, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Ahmadabad

hereinafter referred to as the Author of the One Part and Mr. B carrying on business at

Ahmadabad hereinafter referred to as the Publisher of the Other Part.

WHEREAS:

1. The Author has written a book entitled “discovery” (hereinafter called "the said book")

and desires to publish the same.

2. The author is the absolute owner of the copyright in the book. The copyright is registered

with the Registrar of Copyrights in Ahmadabad.

3. The publisher's representative has scrutinized in detail and to his satisfaction the

manuscript of the book and has offered to purchase the copyright in the said book for the

purpose of publication.

4. The Author has agreed to do so in consideration of the Publisher paying him a sum of Rs

9, 00,000/- as lump sum royalty and on the following terms and conditions agreed to

between the parties.

NOW THIS DEED WITHNESSETH that pursuant to the said agreement and in consideration

of the Publisher paying to the Author a sum of Rs 1, 00,000/- on the execution of the Agreement

(receipt whereof the author admits) he the Author hereby assigns to the Publisher the Copyright

in the said book TO HOLD the same unto the Publisher absolutely throughout India and subject

to reservations hereinafter contained:

1. And the Publisher agrees and undertakes that the said assignment is restricted to publish

the said book in India only and the Publisher shall not without the prior consent in writing

55
 of the author, publish any translation thereof in any other language and shall not allow it

to be exploited for converting into a play or any cinematographic film or any Television

serial.

2. The Publisher undertakes to mention in the first edition, all reprints and subsequent

editions the name of the author as author of the book.

3. The Author hereby warrants to the Publisher that:

a. The Author is the exclusive owner of the copy right in the said book and he has not

assigned the Copyright in or given license to use the copy right to anybody else or

encumbered the same or done anything so as to prevent him from assigning the

said right.

b. That the said book does not contain any defamatory obscene or otherwise

objectionable matter; and

c. That the contents of the current edition of the said book are the original work of the

author and do not constitute breach of copyright vesting in any other person/s.

Where limited extracts have been taken from other published or unpublished works

in which copyright vests in other person/s proper acknowledgement has been made

in the book.

d. That if the publisher requires any other person/s to assist the author in preparing

subsequent editions of the book the names of those persons will also be mentioned

as joint author/s of the book. And the author will do and execute such other acts or

deeds, if required, to confer entire copyright in the said book and as hereby assigned

as may be necessary.

e. That he will not publish either himself or through any other publisher an

abridgment of the said book or any other book on the same subject and which would

be competing with the book or get it published by any other person so long as the

said book which is the subject matter of the present is being published by the

Publisher and sold in the market.

56
 f. That the publisher shall have the right to get the second and subsequent editions of

the book prepared by either the author or any other person of the publisher's choice.

If the publisher requires the author to prepare the second or any subsequent edition,

the author undertakes that he will re-edit the said book at the time of publishing

second edition thereof and to make it up to date when required by the Publisher. In

case of authors failure to do so, the Publisher will be entitled to get the book

reedited, enlarged or abridged through some other author of the publisher's choice.

For the said re-editing, the publisher will pay to the author the sum of Rs. 900,000/-

/-. the author shall complete the re-editing within five months of being asked to do

so by the publisher.

4. And the Author hereby agrees to:

a. Indemnify and keep indemnified the Publisher against all claims, proceedings,

costs and damages incurred or suffered or awarded or paid in respect of or arising

out of any breach or non-performance of any of the warranties on the part of the

Author hereinbefore given or out of any claim by a third party based on facts, which

if substantiated would constitute a breach or non-performance of such warranties.

b. The publisher shall have full right to assign the said copyright to publish the book

in any part of India, to any person.

5. Permit the Author to take 50 copies of the book on publication free of cost.

6. In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto arising out of or in

connection with this deed of whatsoever nature the same shall be referred to arbitration

of a common arbitrator if agreed upon, failing which to two Arbitrators one to be

appointed by each party to the Arbitration. The said Arbitrators shall appoint a presiding

Arbitrator and the Arbitration shall be governed by the Arbitration Act and Conciliation

Act, 1996, or any statutory modification thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Assignor has put his hand the day and year hereinabove written.
57
 Signed and delivered by the) Within

named Assignor Mr. A)

In the presence of........

58
 6) AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER

WHEREAS Mr. Shuhan ray hereinafter called the ‘‘Author’’, has written a work entitled

“discovered” hereinafter called the “Work” and whereas Himanshu Gupta Publishing Co,

having its business premises at Delhi, hereinafter called the ‘‘publishers’’ are desirous of

publishing the Work in book form and whereas the Author agrees to prepare and supply to the

Publishers before 8/10/2017 (Date) a double-spaced typescript of the work suitable for use as

printer’s copy and acceptable to the Publishers in content and form, together with illustrations

as may be mutually deemed desirable and in a form mutually agreed and with index, the Author

does hereby grant and convey to the Publishers the right to:

Print, publish and sell the Work, for the First edition thereof and including all translations,

abridgments and adaptations thereof in English and Indian languages.

The copyright, save the rights assigned herein to the Publishers, shall vest in the Author.

The Publishers, in consideration thereof, agree to publish the Work in book form at their

expense, in a style as to paper, printing and binding considered suitable by the Publishers, and

to use all ordinary means to market the said Work upon terms as follows:

1. Publication, Sale and Terms of Sale.—The Publishers shall have exclusive control of the

form, get-up, price, sale and terms of sale of the Work.

2. Royalties:

a. The Publishers agree to pay to the Author a royalty of 10 per cent of the list price

on each copy of the work actually sold.

b. The Publishers agree to render to the Author statements of copies sold

semiannually as on June 30 and December 31 each year, and to make settlements

thereof within one month thereafter.

59
 c. No Royalty will be payable in respect of any copies given away for review or

complimentary copies.

d. If the Publishers themselves undertake the publication of translations, or

abridgments, or adaptations of the Work in English or in Indian languages, this

agreement will govern, as far as the context will permit, such publication by the

Publishers and accounting and payment to the Author will be governed by clauses

2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) above, subject to the deduction of expenses incurred by the

Publishers in having the said translations, abridgments or adaptations prepared.

3. Author’s corrections.—Should the Author make or cause to be made any alterations in

type, illustrations or plates which are not corrections of typographical or draftsman’s

errors, which shall cost in excess of twenty per cent (20%) of the cost of composition

independent of the cost of the said alterations, the cost of such excess alterations shall be

charged to, and paid for by, the Author. The Publishers may, at their discretion, agree to

debit such charges to the royalty account.

4. Delivery of work.—If the Author fails to supply the full and final typescript along with

the agreed illustrations by the date mentioned for this purpose in this agreement, the

Publishers shall have the option, any time after this date, unilaterally to declare this

agreement cancelled after giving the Author thirty days’ notice in writing to provide the

necessary material, unless the Publishers have meanwhile agreed in writing to an

extension of the period of submitting the material. In the absence of such a written notice,

this agreement will continue to be fully effective and for this period the Publishers will

be deemed to have agreed to an extension of the date for the delivery of the material till

the date of the expiry of any notice the Publishers may subsequently serve on the Author.

5. Correction of proofs.—The Author undertakes diligently to check and correct printers’

proofs sent to him for this purpose by the Publishers and to return them to the Publishers

within 10 days of the receipt of the proofs. If the Author fails or is unable to check proofs

60
 6. as just stipulated, the Publishers shall be free to arrange for such checking by a person

competent, in the Publishers’ judgment, to do so and the cost of this arrangement will be

debited to the royalty account of the Work as the first charge.

7. Subject-index.—The Author agrees to provide a subject-index for each edition of the

book. On his inability or refusal to do so, the Publishers would be free to get the same

prepared by any person deemed competent by them and the cost will be debited to the

royalty account as a first charge.

8. Author’s copies.—The Publishers agree to give to the Author on publication of each new

edition of the Work. . . . . . . . .copies of that edition and to sell him such additional copies

as he desires for personal use and not for resale at the terms allowed by the Publishers to

booksellers, both in respect of discount and packing, postage, freight and forwarding

charges.

9. Damaged copies.—The Publishers may dispose of copies of the Work damaged in

storage and/or transit or by any other means or circumstances rendered unsalable, either

by discarding them as waste or selling them as scrap below cost and, on copies so

discarded or sold, no royalties will be payable.

10. Supplement.—If and when a supplement to the Work is deemed necessary by the

Publishers, the Author agrees to supply the same within reasonable time failing which

the Publishers would be at liberty to get the same prepared against his cost.

11. Warranty.—The Author warrants that the Work is original except for such excerpts from

copyrighted works as may be included with the permission of the copyright owners

thereof, that it contains no libelous statements, that it contains nothing unlawful, and does

not infringe upon any copyright, trademark, patent, statutory right, proprietary right of

others, and that he will indemnify the Publishers against any costs, expenses and damages

arising from any of this warranty.

61
 12. Assignments.—This agreement may be assigned by either party, but only as a whole, and

no part of the respective interests of either party may be assigned without the written

consent of the other party. Notwithstanding any such assignments, this agreement shall

be binding on the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal

representatives.

13. Protection of copyright.—The Publishers shall be free to take, on the Author’s behalf but

at the Publishers’ expense, any action, including legal action that the Publishers may

consider necessary to protect their rights under this agreement arising out of the Author’s

copyright in the Work.

14. Disputes.—If a dispute arises between the parties to this agreement concerning matters

covered by this agreement or incidental thereto, this dispute will be referred to the

arbitration of two arbitrators, one each appointed by the parties hereto, and, in case the

arbitrators disagree, to an umpire of their choice, and the provisions of the Indian

Arbitration Act as in force at the time of the arbitration will apply.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto on the dates

following their signatures.

DATE:

AUTHOR: ____________________

PUBLISHER: ____________________

WITNESSES: ____________________

62
 7) DEED OF ASSIGNMENT OF TRADEMARK

THIS DEED OF ASSIGNMENT is made on 22nd September, 2020

BETWEEN

IRON PHARMA AND SURGICAL PVT. LTD. whose registered office is at Plot No. 128-B,

Phase I and II, G.I.D.C., Naroda, Ahmedabad- 382330, Gujarat (“the Assignor" or “the Party

of the First Part”); and

1. NAVIN RAVILAL SHETH, having address at 302, Shruhad Flats 8 Kailashnagar

Society, beside Somlalit School, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 (“the Party of the

Second Part”)

2. RAJESH RAVILAL SHETH, having address at A block, S/4 Rajdhani Palace

Apartment, opposite St. Xavier's Loyala School, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009

(“the

Party of the Third Part”)

3. RAHUL RAJESH SHETH, having address at A block, S/4 Rajdhani Palace Apartment,

opposite St. Xavier's Loyala School, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 (“the Party of

the Fourth Part”)

4. VAIBHAVI NIMESH JOSHI, having address at 2/3 Shree Apts, Sadhbhav Colony,

Udayan Margh, Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 (“the Party of the Fifth

Part”)

5. DHRUVINKUMAR NIMESHKUMAR JOSHI, having address at 2/3 Shree Apts,

Sadhbhav Colony, Udayan Margh, Law Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 (“the

Party of the Sixth Part”) The parties of the Second Part, Third Part, Fourth Part, Fifth

Part and Sixth Part are hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Assignees”.

63
 WHEREAS

A. The Assignor is the Proprietor of certain trademarks which are to be assigned to the

Assignees; and

B. The Assignor has agreed to assign such trademarks to the Assignees and the Assignees

have agreed to accept such Assignment.

IT IS HEREBY AGREED

1. DEFINITIONS

1.1 Unless the context otherwise provides, the words and expressions used in this Deed

of Assignment shall have the following meanings:

“Effective Date"

Means the date of this Deed of Assignment as set out above;

“Schedule"

Means Schedule A which is annexed hereto and forms part of this Deed of

Assignment; and

“Trade Marks"

Mean the trademarks, whether registered or not, particulars of which are set out in

Schedule A to this Deed of Assignment.

2. ASSIGNMENT

In consideration of the payment of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) by

the Assignees to the Assignor (the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged) the

Assignor, as beneficial owner and proprietor, hereby, assigns and transfers to the

Assignees with full title guarantee rights, any and all Intellectual Property Rights, in

respect of the Trade Marks listed in Schedule A to this Deed of Assignment, from the

date of this Deed of Assignment. The Assignment includes common law and statutory

rights in the Trade Marks.

64
 3. GOODWILL

The Assignor confirms that the Assignment of the Trade Marks is not made otherwise

than in connection with the goodwill of the business in which the Trade Marks have been

used.

4. FURTHER ASSURANCE

The Assignor covenants that at the request and cost of the Assignees, the Assignor will

take all reasonable steps and execute all documents as may be reasonably necessary or

desirable to secure the vesting in the Assignees of all rights assigned to the Assignees

under this Deed of Assignment and to assist the Assignees to prosecute, protect and

defend the Assignees’ Intellectual Property Rights in the Trade Marks.

5. JURISDICTION

This Deed of Assignment is governed by the laws of India and the Assignor and the

Assignees accept and submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts in Ahmedabad

only.

SCHEDULE A:

(SCHEDULE OF TRADEMARKS)

TRADEMARKS WITH SUBSISTING REGISTERATIONS

SR. NO. TM. NO. TRADEMARK

01. 1058244 NIMCON

02. 1065761 ONGIST

03. 1058974 DROP & TABLET (WORD)

TRADEMARKS FOR WHICH REGISTERATION NOT RENEWED

SR. NO. TM. NO. TRADEMARK

65
 01. 1069856 ICOZYME

02. 1066741 BUCON PLUS

The parties have SIGNED and EXECUTED and delivered this Deed of Assignment as a

DEED on the date first set out as above.

SIGNED
____________________
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ____________________ BY

SIGNED
____________________
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ____________________ BY

SIGNED
____________________
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ____________________ BY

IN THE PRESENCE OF:

WITNESS:
1. ____________________ 2.
____________________

WITNESS:
1. ____________________ 2.
____________________

66
 UNIT: 4.2 JUDGMENT WRITING

67
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIGO

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION NO. ____ OF 2018

IN

PETITION NO. __/__/2018

IN THE MATTER OF:-

COMMITTEE OF CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS ……………….

PETITIONER

V/S

UNION OF INDIA …………………………………………..

RESPONDENT

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is filed within time;

2. The Petition is not barred by time and;

3. There is no delay in filing the same against order 25th July 2018 passed

by this Hon’ble Court and is within the 30 days limitation period.

68
 ACTS

• THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

• THE CITIZENSHIP ACT, 1955.

• THE ASSAM ACCORD

• THE CITIZENSHIP ( AMENDMENT) BILL,2016

• THE FOREIGNER’S ACT 1946

• THE ILLEGAL MIGRANTS DETERMINATION TRIBUNAL ACT,1983

MAINTAINABILITY

This review petition is directed against impugned judgment dated 25th July, 2018 wherein
the
Chakma’s and Hajongs refugees were directed to be granted citizenship. Rohingya Muslims
were to be detected and deported to the Uyanmmar for the sake of national security.

The review petition filed by the Petitioner is maintainable as it is filed within the limitation
period and as the Petitioner being the aggrieved party has the right a review petition against
the previous order.

REVIEW

1. The Court may review its judgment or order, but no application for review will be
entertained in a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order XLVII, rule
I of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent
on the face of the record.
2. The application for review shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Advocate on
Record certifying that it is the first application for review and is based on the grounds
admissible under the Rules.
3. An application for review shall be by a petition, and shall be filed within thirty days
from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. It shall set out clearly
the grounds for review.
AUTHOR: ABC (CJI)
69
 BENCH: ABC (CJI), PQR (J), DEF (J), LMN (J), STU (J).

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner by this review petition filed under Article 137 of the constitution prays

to review the judgment dated 15-05-2018 passed by this court while disposing W.P.

(Civil) No. 200-301 of 2017. Before entering the facts of the matter, it is useful to

recapitulate the scope and ground of the maintainability of the review petition. Order

XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 dealing with the review clearly says

review with regards to a civil proceeding will be allowed only on the grounds

mentioned in the Order

XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. It is pertinent to refer Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. v

Sheikh Habib where it was held that a review of a judgment is a serious step and

reluctant resort to it is proper only when a glaring omission or patent mistake or like

grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present case has had a

chequered history so far. Not only the constitutional validity of an Act is under

question on the ground of violating

Article 14 of the constitution, but the Nation’s commitment to jus cogens, especially

in view of a vacuum in domestic laws with respect to the issue of asylum seekers faces

a serious impediment. In view of the larger constitutional as well as common law

principles being in question, the review petition is allowed.

2. At the outset, it is necessary to state the facts in detail to appreciate the questions which

arise for determination before this court. The constitution of Indigo does not define

citizenship and it is left to The Citizenship Act, 1955 to define acquisition and

determination of Citizenship. Over the years, Chakma and Hajong tribes from East

Zakistan infiltrated into Vassam and Tarunachal Pradesh provinces of Indigo much to

the chagrin of the natives of Tarunachal Pradesh who feared adverse effect on
70
 demography. Hence, despite the Government’s intention the refugees could not be

settled. In 1971 there was massive influx of asylum seekers from East Zakistan to

Indigo. After Sangladesh emerged as an independent nation, Indigo and Sangladesh

issued a circular to grant the citizenship of Indigo to migrants entering Indigo prior to

25-03-1971. Despite, the circular the influx of illegal migrants continued to Vassam

afterwards. Indigo passed Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983

which allowed much nonindigo who came after 25-03-1971 to reside in India. This

caused unprecedented violence in Vassam. To deal with the issue, Vassam Accord was

framed which specifically required that steps would be taken to detect and deport

illegal migrants. Accordingly, the Citizenship Act, 1955 was amended which provided

all persons who came to Vassam on or after 01-01-1966 but before 25-03- 1971 from

territories of Sangladesh would be deemed as Citizens of Indigo.

3. The Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 was passed which provided that illegal

immigrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhsits, Jains, Parsis and Christians from

Nafghanistan, Sangladesh and Zakistan are eligible for Citizenship and have been

exempted from the provisions of the Passport Act, 1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946.

Aggrieved by this Act, on 2-01-2018, Committee of Citizenship Rights filed a writ

petition in the Supreme Court claiming the Act made discrimination with the

Muslimminorities in Sangladesh, Nafghanistan and Zakistan and allowed other illegal

migrants eligible for citizenship based on religion violating Article 14 of the

constitution. While the matter was still pending in the Supreme Court, a riot broke out

in the Rakhine province of the Uyanmaar; causing around 40,000 Rohingya Muslims

enter the territory of Indigo fearing religious persecution. Apprehending threat to

national security the Ministry of Home affairs of Indigo issued a circular dated 28-04-

71
 2018 declaring that Indigo would not be able to accommodate the illegal migrants from

Uyanmaar.

Aggrieved by the circular, Committee of Citizenship Rights filed another writ petition

in the Supreme Court on 30-04-2018 on the ground that Rohingya could not be

deported as they did not own the citizenship of Uyanmaar.

4. Both petitions were clubbed by the Supreme Court and a two Judge bench decided that

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 was constitutionally valid. It directed the

Government to grant citizenship to Chakma and Hajong refugees. It also ordered that
all

Rohingya must be detected and deported back for the sake of national security.

Guidelines were issued to draft a specific refugee law for the country. Challenging the

decision on the basis that— Firstly, The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 is

unconstitutional and Secondly, deportation of the Rohingya is a violation of

International Human Rights Conventions, a review petition was filed.

5. The contention of the Government is that The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016

envisages a reasonable classification of certain countries and religious minorities

belonging to those countries. In their submission the Counsel for Government referred

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar wherein it was held that it

must be presumed that the legislature understood the need of its own people and that

its discriminations were based on adequate grounds. The Government also referred to

Khyerbari Tea Co. v. Assam and Nagappa v. I.O.M. Cess Commr. and submitted that

the legislature was free to recognize degrees of harm and might confine its restrictions

to those cases where the need was deemed to be clearest. Finally, it was also submitted

that there was always a presumption in favour of constitutionality of an enactment and

the burden was upon the petitioner to show that there was a transgression of the

constitutional principle. Secondly, it was also submitted that Right to life under Article

72
 21 was not an unqualified right and could be abrogated by procedure established by

law. Rohingya

Muslim immigrants were a threat to National Security and deporting them by

application
of procedure established by law (i.e. Foreigners Act, 1946) was not hit by Article 21

of the constitution. On the other hand, the petitioner submitted that the classification

of certain non-Muslims into a group was violative of the principle of equality. They

also submitted that, as Rohingya Muslims didn’t have the citizenship of Uyanmaar,

deporting them, where the chance of religious persecution was very high, was violative

of Article 21 of the constitution as well as the violation of various international

instrumentalities to which Indigo was a signatory. Now, the matter is lying with this

Court.

6. This Court is presented with two issues: First, whether the Citizenship (Amendment)
Act,

2016 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) is unconstitutional when examined through

the prism of Article 14 of the Constitution and Secondly, whether the deportation of

Rohingya as a violation of International Human Rights Convention.

I. WHETHER THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 (HEREINAFTER

REFERRED AS “THE ACT”) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN

EXAMINED THROUGH THE PRISM OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE

CONSTITUTION?

7. Before going into the analysis of the first issue it is pertinent to consider the form and

objective of Article 14. The Article speaks that, the state shall not deny any person

equality before law or equal protection of the laws provided nothing therein contained

shall prevent the State from making a law based on or involving a reasonable

73
 classification. The concept of reasonable classification means a law must operate alike

on all persons similarly placed in similar circumstances. It involves putting persons or

things together in a class; and the equality clause requires that the class thus formed

must not leave out any person of thing which falls within the class. The Supreme Court

in Dalmia6 points out that reasonable classification must satisfy two conditions; (1) it

must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things

that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (2) the differentia must

have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.

Reliance may be placed on Kangshari Haldar v. State of West Bengal wherein

Gajendragadkar, J. has held that if either of the two criteria are not satisfied then the

act is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.

8. Applying the above principle, this court will try to see whether the proposed

classification by the act fulfils both the criteria to stand the test of article 14. It is

pertinent to mention that the classification to be valid both the criteria together need

to be satisfied; if one criterion fails the classification is liable to be struck down as ultra

vires.

9. The court intends to form three hypotheses and test them through points of law as well

as facts of the case. The three hypotheses are

A. Geography as a basis for reasonable classification;

B. Religious Persecution as a basis for reasonable classification;

C. Immigration to Indigo as a basis for reasonable classification.

(A) Geography as a basis for reasonable classification

10. It is a settled principle of law that geography can be a basis for classification provided

there exists a rational nexus with the objects sought to be achieved by the act. Reliance

may be placed on Sarbananda Sonowal v Union of India, where the Court has to deal

74
 with Illegal Migrants Determination (Determination by Tribunal) Act (IMDT Act) and

its geographical exclusiveness regarding its applicability to state of Vassam. The Court

has held that

“For satisfying the test of Article 14, the geographical factor alone in making

a classification is not enough but there must be a nexus with the objects sought to be

achieved.”

11. Same principle was followed in Gopal Narain v State of UP11, Kailash Chand Sharma
v State of Rajasthan, and Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd v Union of India.

12. The object of the Act is to facilitate granting of Citizenship to people of only six

religious communities who have migrated to Indigo. The legislature is well within its

right to define the class based on geography. However, the object will not be satisfied

if only three nations are chosen as a class. To cite an example a sizeable population of

Chin migrants from Uyanmaar is residing in Indigo who practices Christianity. Hence,

excluding Uyanmaar from the classification will not treat Christians migrate from

Zakistan, Nafghanistan and Sangladesh equally with the Christian migrants from

Uyanmaar. The objective envisaged by the legislature will not be fulfilled through the

Act. Also, reliance may be posited on Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, wherein

it was held that if the prohibition provided in Article 14 is violated, the law would be

void, howsoever laudable the motive of its makers. Exclusion of other neighboring

nations from the classification renders the Act hit by the prohibition of Article 14 and

hence, it is not constitutionally tenable.

(B) Religious persecution as a basis of reasonable classification

13. The contention that religious persecution as a basis for classification is also not

tenable. As the facts reveal religious persecution is not limited to only three nations. It

is very much present in Uyanmaar as well as in China. Secondly, religious persecution

75
 is not limited to the six religions alone. In the neighbourhood of Indigo, Rohingya

Muslims have been subjected to violence in Uyanmaar; Uighur Muslims are facing

dire religious persecution in the Xinjiang province of China. Besides, there is hatred

between Hui Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists in Lhasa province, which has resulted in

incidents of religious persecution of Hui Muslims in certain pockets of Lhasa. Hence,

there is no reasonable basis to classify only six religions as a separate group on the

presumption that only those religions face persecution. The criterion of intelligible

differentia is not fulfilled.

(C) Immigration to Indigo as a basis of reasonable classification

14. Indigo has a sizeable chunk of immigrants from Uyanmaar including the Chin tribes

and the Rohingya Muslims. Sri Lankan Tamils also constitute a sizeable group so also

the Tibetan settlers. Hence, only three countries cannot be singled out as the dominant

contributor of immigrants to India. Besides, reference may be made to Royappa v State

of Tamil Nadu and Maneka Gandhi v Union of India where the Courts have held that

Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and equality of

treatment. The Act is fraught with arbitrariness as it has intended to bring in artificial

difference between migrants of different religion. Hence, the Act is bound to fail the

test of Article 14 of the constitution.

II. WHETHER THE DEPORTATION OF ROHINGYA IS A VIOLATION OF

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION?

15. Next, the court is faced with the question whether the deportation of Rohingya as a

violation of International Human Rights Convention. The Court frames the following

questions of law to examine the issue.

A. What are Indigo’s obligations under International treaty regime?

76
 B. What domestic law precedents speak on the issue?

(A) What are Indigo’s obligations under International Treaty Regime?

16. As Indigo is not a signatory to the Refugee convention of 1951 or the Refugee protocol

of 1967, she is not legally bound to the principle of non-refoulment with respect to

Rohingya Muslims. However, Jean Allain in his Article 21 has demonstrated that

nonrefoulement is a peremptory norm of international law. No derogation from it is

permissible. Executive Committee of UNHCR observed that:

“The principle of non-refoulment … was progressively acquiring the

character of a peremptory rule of international law.”

17. It means, non-refoulment comes under customary international law and Indigo is

obligated to abide by the principle.

18. Besides, Indigo is a signatory to certain other international treaties which impose a

moral obligation on Indigo with respect to asylum seekers. Some of such international

instruments are described below.

19. Indigo has acceded to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979.

Advisory issued by UN Human Rights Committee has explicitly stated that the

Covenant

Rights must also be available to all individuals regardless of nationality or

statelessness. Similarly, Article 6 (Right to Life) and Article 7 (right to be free from

torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Covenant is applicable

to the Rohingya Muslims in Indigo. They should be read with Article 21 of the

Constitution which provides right to life and personal liberty to aliens also.

20. Indigo is a signatory to Bangkok Principles on the Status and Treatment of Refugees,

1966 whose article III states:

“Everyone without any distinction of any kind is entitled to the right to seek

77
 and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

21. Based on this principle, Rohingya have a right to seek and enjoy asylum in India to

avoid persecution in Myanmar.

22. Indigo is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture, 1987. Article

3 of the instrument explicitly prohibits countries from returning refugees back to

countries where they risk being tortured. Though Indigo has not ratified the

convention, signing implies Indigo’s intention to adhere to UNCAT.

23. Indigo is a signatory to Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide and ratified it on 27-08-1959. This Convention declares genocide a crime

under international law whether committed during war or peacetime and binds all

signatories of the convention to prevent genocide. By deporting the Rohingyas there

is every apprehension that they will become a victim of genocide, and thus the State

of Indigo would fail to live up to its commitment of preventing genocide under the

convention.

24. Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi vs Union of India And Ors may be referred, where the

Gujarat High Court held that

“In view of directives under Article 51(c) and Article 253, international law

and treaty obligations are to be respected when they are not inconsistent

with domestic law.”

25. Similarly, in Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (6) SCC 241 it was held that

International law conventions may be adhered where there is a void in domestic law.

26. In view of the above-mentioned international instrumentalities and the directives given

under Article 51(c) and Article 253 of Constitution, deportation Rohingya Muslim is

violative of the jus cogens of international law.

(B) What domestic law precedents speak in the issue?

78
 27. The Principle of Non-refoulment is implicit in the Article 21 of the constitution.

Reliance may be placed on Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi v Union of India And Ors

wherein the Gujarat High Court has held that Non-Refoulment is encompassed in

Article 21 of the Constitution, so long as the presence of refugee is not prejudicial to

the law and order and security of India. No data is presented to the court which shows

Rohingya Muslims are a threat to the national security. Hence, this court concurs

Gujarat High Court’s view about non refoulment.

28. The court wishes to refer to National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal

Pradesh & Anr., wherein it was held that the Constitution confers certain rights on every

human being and certain other rights on citizens. No person could be deprived of his life or

personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The State is bound to

protect the life and liberty of every human being, be he a citizen or otherwise. Rohingya

residing in India are similarly, entitled to protection under Article 21 of the constitution. This

protection can be infringed only through a procedure established by law, which is the

Foreigners Act, 1946.

29. According to the said act, in view of national security punitive action under Foreigners

Act, 1946 may be resorted to. Hence, without having established, that Rohingya are a

threat to national security, a blanket order of deportation to Myanmar not only vitiates

the various international covenants but also violates the Article 21 of the constitution.

This principle is iterated in Dongh Lian Kham & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. on 21

December 2015 wherein, Delhi High Court has ordered the executive not to deport

two people from Myanmar and seek options to deport them to a third country on the

basis of threat to national security. Similarly, in In Malvika Karlekar v. Union of India,

Crl. WP No. 243 of 1988, Supreme Court stayed the deportation of Burmese refugees

on similar grounds.

79
 30. In view of the reasoning thus cited, this court believes deportation of Rohingya to

Myanmar without following a procedure established by law is violative of Article 21

of the constitution.

ORDER

1. The Section 3 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016 is unconstitutional

being violative of the Article 14 of the constitution.
2. Blanket order requiring deportation of Rohingya to Myanmar where they are

facing persecution without following the due process and procedure

established by law is violative of Article 21 of the constitution.

3. The Government may come with a coherent National refugee policy to deal
with the refugee and asylum seeker crisis.

REVIEW PETITION NO. ___/2018 IS DISPOSED OF IN TERMS OF

THE ABOVE.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON __ DAY OF ___, 20__.

80