SUMMER TRAINING PROJECT REPORT

In lieu of Partial Fulfillment of X semester of the

Degree of B.A. LL.B. (H) for the batch of 2016-2021

SUBMITTED BY:-
SHRESTHA
TENTH SEMESTER
B.A. LL.B.(H)
Enrollment No.- 06413403816

SUBMITTED TO:-
IDEAL ISTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND
TECHNOLOGY & SCHOOL OF LAW
(GGSIP University, Delhi)
16-X, Karkardooma, Institutional Area, Delhi.
 DECLARATION

I, Shreshtha, student of Ideal Institute of Management and Technology (School of

Law) certify that all the information in this report has been studied by me under the
guidance of Advocate Sh. Vikas Doohan.

All this information is true to my knowledge and has not been copied from any other
source. The report consists of whatever little I have learnt and observed during my
internship.

I declare that this Project Report is absolutely genuine and primary.

SHRESHTHA
06413403816
CERTIFICATE
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to acknowledge and express my deep gratitude to all the person who has
been my constant support, source of encouragement and inspiration and helped me in
successfully complying and completing this internship report for time bound
submission.

I take profound sense of pride to convey my gratefulness towards my university- Guru

Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and my institution- Ideal Institute of
Management and Technology & School of Law, for providing me with this great
opportunity to such an enlightening internship.

I also take extreme delight and thankfulness to my sir, Advocate Sh Vikas Doohan, for
providing me with all the guidance, care and knowledge in the duration of my
internship and I look forward to work again with him in the near future.

In the end, I would also like to thank my professors, my family, and my friends for
being a foundation of love and support during the internship as well as at the time of
drafting of this report.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ........................................................................................................ 2
CERTIFICATE. .......................................................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ......................................................................................... 4

TABLE OF CASES

1. AVINASH V. CHANDRA RAI AND ORS ..................................................... 6

2. NANDINI CHATTERJEE V. AMIR SHARMA............................................... 8
3. GEETIKA JOSHI V. AKASH JOSHI… ........................................................ 10
4. M/S UMA INDUSTRIES V. RISHI ENTERPRISES… ................................ 12
5. SHIV SINGH V. GURINDER AND ORS… ................................................. 14
6. BRAIN WORLD HOSPITAL V. SAROJ DEVI… ...................................... 16
7. M/S GUPTA ASSURANCE V. VIR SINGH AND ORS…............................ 18
8. ABHISHEK KUKERETI V. JAGDISH POKHRIYAL… ............................. 20
9. M/S GOVIND ENTERPRISES V. M/S GLOW LIGHT…............................. 21
10. REEKHA HANS V. BACHITTER SINGH .................................................... 23
11. STATE V. USMAN AMIR AND ORS… ....................................................... 25
12. LAKSHAY PRATAP V. ISHAN MITTAL… ................................................ 27
13. CANARA BANK V. PRAMILLA…............................................................. 29
14. BABEENA NAGPAL V. ANUJ KUMAR PAL… ........................................ 30
15. PRIYANKA AND ORS. V. UMER… .......................................................... 32
16. NANDLAL V. SARTHAK ............................................................................ 34
17. ANUPAMA V. MEGHNA… ......................................................................... 36
 CASE NO. 1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NAVEEN,
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

AVINASH
......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS

CHANDRA RAI AND ORS............................................................. DEFENDANTS

Date of Hearing: 09/03/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION U/S 38 & 39 OF

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

Brief facts:

1. Plaintiff is the son of Defendant 1, residing in the house other than where
Defendant 1 resides. Parties of the case apart from Defendant 1 are brothers.
2. Defendant 1 purchased a property measuring 180sq. yards in 1978 in the name of
his wife. An oral partition was made and the property were divided among the 3
brothers, i.e. plaintiff, defendant 2 and defendant 3.
3. In 1993, the wife of Defendant 1 died and Plaintiff requested the Defendants for
partition by metes and bounds in writing but they refused.
4. Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 raised construction on their said part but due to some
unavoidable circumstances the Plaintiff could not. There was, however, continuous
trespass in the share of Plaintiff.
5. Police and society intervened, which resulted in plaintiff being advised to approach
the court for permanent injunction.
6. The case is before the Hon’ble court and the plaintiff also has a right over the
property as he is one of the legal heirs, while everyone excluding him are enjoying
their rights, plaintiff cannot be denied to have control over his expressed and implied
share.

OBSERVATION:
The Plaintiff is asked to prove that there was any such partition with the help of
evidence by the way of affidavits. On the next date the plaintiff needs to file the list of
witnesses.

Next Date of Hearing : 20/05/2021

 CASE NO. 2
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI.

IN THE MATTER OF:

NANDINI CHATTERJEE........................................................ COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

AMIR SHARMA .................................................................................. ACCUSED

Date of Hearing: 25/03/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: COMPLAINT U/S 138 AND 141 OF NEGTIABLE

INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881

Brief facts:

1. In this case, the complainant is a teacher in MCD School, Delhi and the accused is
running a business of Jeans.
2. That the complainant advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 6 lakhs on 15.10.2016 only on
the conditions when the accused issue a Cheque against the friendly loan amount as
security to the complaint and the accused agreed to issue the Cheque as security
against the friendly loan amount.
3. In order to get loan, the accused issued a post-dated Cheque , in the month of
November, 2015 stating that on the presentation of this Cheque, it shall be honoured.
4. The said Cheque was dishonoured for the reasons and remarks as “Funds
Insufficient” when presented by the complainant for encashment.
OBSERVATION:
On hearing of this case, I observed that the matter is listed for final arguments.
Arguments were heard.

Next Date of Hearing: 05/08/2021

 CASE NO 3
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA, FAMILY COURT, DWARKA, NEW
DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

GEETIKA JOSHI ……PETITIONER

VERSUS

AKASH JOSHI ……RESPONDENT

Date of Hearing: 26/03/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE U/S 125 OF CPC,

1908

Brief facts:

1. Petitioner was married to the Respondent on 28/01/2018 as per the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. Due to regular fights and frequent events of verbal and physical abuse
between the husband and wife, their relationship was toxic and unhealthy.
2. The respondent many times ask the petitioner to leave the house and on 20/09/2019
the petitioner leaves his house and moved to her parent’s house.
3. The petitioner in her application has also stated that the respondent has a regular
drinking and gambling habit which resulted in a lot of fights between them.
4. The petitioner had filed an application for divorce and asked for maintenance from
the respondent under section 125 of CPC, 1973
OBSERVATION:
In the matter listed today, the petitioner files an application under section 125 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court issued summons for calling respondent to the
court and ask for the reply of notice filed by the petitioner.

Next Date of Hearing: 03/05/2021

 CASE N0 4
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKAS DHULL, CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA COURT,
NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S UMA INDUSTRIES .......................................................... COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

M/S RISHI ENTERPRISES ......................................................... DEFENDANT

Date of Hearing: 07/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 2, 30,173/- UNDER

ORDER 37 OF CPC, 1908

Brief facts:

1. The Plaintiff is the manufacturer of paper sheets etc. under the name and style of
M/S Uma Industries.
2. The Defendant used to purchase various items from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff
has maintained a current account in his books of account.
3. The Defendant was used to make payments time to time and as such the Defendant
had purchased various items from the Plaintiff since 23.05.2015 to 21.12.2019 of Rs.
4,80,173/-, out of which the Defendant has paid a total of Rs.2,50,000/- through bank.
4. That on 23.12.2019 a total of sum of Rs. 2,30,173/- was outstanding against the
Defendant which he failed to pay in one pretext or other.
5. The Plaintiff served a legal notice through his counsel to recover the outstanding
aforesaid amount.
6. The said notice was duly served on 25.10.2020 was duly served upon the
Defendant; however the Defendant has failed to make payment despite the service of
the said legal notice.

OBSERVATION:
On this date the case was filed and the Defendant was called upon the Hon’ble court
by the next date.

Next Date of Hearing: 26/08/2021

 CASE NO 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT, DWARKA
COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHIV SINGH .….PETITIONER

VERSUS

GURINDER & ORS .….RESPONDENT

Date of Hearing: 20/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: APPLICATION U/S 166 AND 140 OF THE MOTOR

VEHICLE ACT, 1988 FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION

Brief facts:

1. In this case, on 02/10/2016 at about 9 am in the broad day time near Village Dabri,
Respondent no. 1, Mahendra who was driving a Light Goods Vehicle, bearing
Registration No. HR 1C DB 4052 had reversed the offending vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner without blowing any horn and without observing any traffic rules,
hit the petitioner, Shivam Kumar, who was going towards bus stop.
2. As a result of accident, the petitioner suffered many grievous injuries.
3. The impact of the said accident was such that the deceased was immediately taken
to Dada Dev Hospital. Local Police thereafter registered a FIR bearing No. 912/2016
U/S 279/337 IPC against the Respondent No. 1.
4. The accident has put immense financial burden on the petitioner and his family. It is
pertinent to mention herein that the Petitioner was working as a Tailor at Boutique at
Palam Village. His salary was Rs. 17000/- (Seveteen Thousand) and he is the only
working person in his family.
5. The whole family was dependent on his income. The deceased was assessed to
income tax. The Petitioner No. 1 is not able to go to his shop for the past 2 months and
is facing many financial problems due to it.

OBSERVATION:
Today Matter is listed for settlement before the Lok Adalat. Insurance company
refused the proposal of the injured/petitioner no. 1..

Next Date of Hearing: 18/07/2021

 CASE NO 6
IN THE COURT OF SH ASHISH, CIVIL JUDGE, DWARKA COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

BRAIN WORLD HOSPITAL ……COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

SAROJ DEVI AND ORS. ................................................................. DEFENDANT

Date of Hearing: 05/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.72, 000/- UNDER ORDER

37 OF CPC, 1908

BRIEF FACTS:

1. In this case, the defendant’s son was admitted in the plaintiff hospital with severe
stomach ache for last three days.
2. At the time of admission the defendant informed that the patient was insured and
number of amount has been deposited with the hospital.
3. The insurance company has declined the treatment in the particular hospital and the
defendant left the hospital due to shortage of supplies without paying any bill.
4. The plaintiff sends the legal notice for payment of hospital bill.
5. After giving much intimation and a legal notice, there was still not any payment
made by the defendant.
6. The plaintiff pleads before the Hon’ble Court for the recovery of money from the
defendant.
OBSERVATION:
The defendant din’t show up and was adjourned for the next date of hearing by
Hon’ble Court.

Next Date of Hearing: 24/09/2021

 CASE NO 7
IN THE COURT OF MS. NITI, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA
COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S GUPTA ASSURANCE LTD ................................................ COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

SH. VIR SINGH & ORS .......................................................................... ACCUSED

Date of Hearing: 06/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: COMPLAINT U/S 138 AND 141 OF NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENT ACT, 1881

BRIEF FACTS:

1. Piyush Sharma, the accused approached the complainant for loan as he was in dire
need of money for the expansion of his business.
2. The complainant considering his request arranged the amount and sanctioned a loan
to the accused which was to be repaid in EMI. The accused issued a cheque to be
presented in case of any default in repayment.
3. The accused denied EMI for 2 consecutive months. So, the said cheque was sent for
collection by the complainant but was dishonoured reason being “funds insufficient”.
4. A demand notice was issued within a month in the name of the accused for the
payment of the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice.
5. Accused however, stated that no loan was provided to him, the agreement was
never discharged and the cheque given was a pre-issued cheque which was illegally
presented.
OBSERVATION:

In the matter listed above, there were insufficient funds in the account of the drawer.
Complainant followed the prescribed procedure and acted accordingly, but no
payment was made whereas according to the accused no 1 such agreement was there,
the complainant misused the pre-dated cheque.

Next Date of Hearing: 09/08/2021

 CASE NO 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKHAJ, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK KUKERTI ……PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

JAGDISH POKHRIYAL ......................................................................DEFENDANT

Date of Hearing: 08/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: SUIT FOR POSSESSION U/S 5 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF

ACT, 1963

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The plaintiff is a resident of Palam who lives with his family.

2. The plaintiff has rented half portion of the same house to the defendant.
3. The defendant paid the rent to the defendant till 1 year and afterwards refused to
pay the rent.
4. The plaintiff many times requested the defendant to pay the rent but he always
makes an excuse so that he escapes from paying the amount fixed as a rent for the
house.
5. When the plaintiff asked the defendant to evict the house, the defendant refused to
do the same.
6. The plaintiff files a suit so that the defendant can be evicted from the house which
was occupied by the defendant in the capacity of tenant.
OBSERVATION:
The suit was filed on this day. The defendant is called before the Hon’ble court for the
next date

Next Date of Hearing: 25/05/2021

 CASE NO 9
IN THE COURT OF MS. MAMTA, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER:

M/S GOVIND ENTERPRISES ……PETITIONER

VERSUS

M/S GLOW LIGHT LTD ……DEFENDANT

Date of Hearing: 28/05/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY UNDER ORDER 37

OF CPC, 1908

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The plaintiff runs a business of trading of electrical equipments. The plaintiff

purchased some pre-paid systems as per the demand of its customers from the
defendant.
2. Later, after the inspection of meters, it was found that the meters were defective &
were not properly working.
3. Plaintiff intimated defendant about the fault & required defendant to replace the
faulty meters but defendant did not respond & did not avail to it.
4. Thus, the plaintiff approached the court for recovery of sum & seeking relief.

OBSERVATION:
The matter was adjourned for the next date. The defendant didn’t show up.
Next Date of Hearing: 04/09/2021
 CASE NO 10
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SHRI MEENA KAUSHIK, DWARKA COURT
NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

REKHA HANS ……… COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

BACHITTER SINGH ...................................................................... DEFENDANT

Date of Hearing: 26/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE U/S 125 OF CPC,

1908

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The complainant and defendant married each other against the wishes of their
family’s wishes. The couple married in the Arya Samaj Mandir in the district of
Mahipalpur.
3. Both the complainant and defendant were previously married and had one son from
their respective first marriages.
4. The sons of both the complainant and defendant were friends from before.
5. The defendant sometime after the marriage started verbally abusing the complainant
and her son.
6. The defendant started to physically torment the complainant and calling her names
like “whore” and etc.
7. The defendant encouraged his son to abuse his step mother too.
8. The defendant also started to abuse the son of the complainant.
9. The defendant also encouraged his son to abuse the son of the complainant.
10. The complainant also tried to lodge a complaint with the police but the police
officials tried to mediate the matter between the two and told them to work out their
differences.
11. The defendant refused to give money to the complainant to meet her day to day
expenses and told her to go to the court if she wants her expenses.
12. The complainant finally filed a suit to claim her and her son’s maintenance from
the defendant and seeks a divorce.

OBSERVATION
The judge sent the matter into the mediation

NEXT DATE OF HEARING: 21/10/2021

 CASE NO 11
IN THE COURT OF SH. NK KAUSHIK, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE ....................................................................................... COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

USMAN AMIR & OTHERS ................................................................ ACCUSED

Date of Hearing: 23/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: COMPLAINT U/S 395, 380, 34, 120B OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860 AND 24, 54, 59 OF ARMS ACT, 1959

BRIEF FACTS:

1. In this case the accused Zishan who resides in Dabri with his common friends
commit decoit of 4000 batteries in a warehouse in sagarpur and ran away from the
spot.
2. A formal FIR has been registered on the application submitted by company official
and thereafter the matter transfer to Investigation Agency for further investigation.
3. After many attempts, the Investigation Agency was successful in tracing the
accused that was living at his relative place to hide from the Agency.
4. The accused was arrested by the Investigation Agency and 2800 batteries were
recovered from the same.
5. After completion of investigation, a challan has been submitted by the police
official before the Magistrate.
6. The suit has been filed against the accused u/s 395, 380, 34.120B of Indian penal
Code, 1860 and 24, 54, 59 of Arms Act, 1959 before the Hon’ble Court.
OBSERVATION:

That the matter listed for checking of challan and a copy of same was supplied to
accused for free of cost and adjourned for the next hearing by the Hon’ble Court.

Next Date of Hearing: 31/05/2021

 CASE NO 12
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

LAKSHYA PRATAP ……PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

ISHAN MITTAL ……DEFENDANT

Date of Hearing: 27/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION, DAMAGES &

PERMANENT INJUNCTION U/S 34 AND 38 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from defendant no.4 in the suit. She paid
full amount for furnishing the same in advance.
2. The plaintiff was later illegally restrained to enter the suit property by the
defendants 1, 2 and 3.
3. The defendant no. 1-3 have illegally dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit
property & taken the forcible possession thereof.
4. The plaintiff being a bona fide purchaser of the suit property thus approached the
court to obtain a decree of declaration for peaceful possession & permanent
injunction.

OBSERVATION:
Both the advocates of the parties were present & addressed the arguments on an
application filed by defendant u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC. Matter was adjourned for further
arguments.

Next Date of Hearing: 30-09-2021

 CASE NO 13
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

CANARA BANK ..................................................................... COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

PRAMILLA ................................................................................ RESPONDENT

Date of Hearing: 28/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: PETITION FOR EXECUTION R/S 3,00,00 U/S 38 OF

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The Judgment Debtor had obtained loan facility for purchasing vehicle i.e. Suzuki
Baleno from the Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtor was irregular to pay monthly
instalments to the Decree Holder.
2. As per the agreement, Decree Holder had filed arbitration proceeding against the
Judgment Debtor.
3. On notice the Judgment Debtor was failed to appear before the arbitrator and an
award of 3,00,000 was been passed against the Judgment Debtor.
4. After that an execution petition was filed by the Judgment Debtor.

OBSERVATION:
That the matter has been listed for the purpose of the argument and the next date was
given by the Hon’ble court.
Next Date of Hearing: 13/05/2021
 CASE NO 14
IN THE COURT OF MS PURVA, PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURTS,
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

BABEENA NAGPAL & ORS ……PETITIONER

VERSUS

ANUJ KUMAR PAL …….RESPONDENT

Date of Hearing: 29/04/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE U/S

125 OF CrPc, 1973

BRIEF FACTS:

1. In this case that the Petitioner is the legality wedded wife of the respondent and
their marriage was solemnized on 22/02/2015, Delhi as per the Hindu customs and
rites. The marriage was registered in the office of Registrar of Marriage. The
petitioner stayed in her matrimonial home after the marriage with her
husband/respondent and other family members.
2. The marriage was consummated and out of the said wedlock one female child name
Maira was born. It is pertinent to mention here that the marriage was arranged by Smt.
Suman, sister of the respondent who was a mediator and assured that immediately
after marriage the petitioner will go to New York-USA where the respondent is
working and a green card holder. The female child is in the custody of the petitioner
who is residing at her parental home since 2018.
3. From the very inception of the marriage the respondent and his sister played fraud
and deception with the father of the petitioner. The respondent sent a resume/bio-data
where in his date of birth is shown as 9/12/1975 but after the marriage the petitioner
saw the passport of the respondent and was shocked to know that his actual date of
birth is 9/12/1971. This fact has caused immense stress to the petitioner.
4. The sister of the respondent informed that the respondent is residing at New York
and they want a simple marriage and no household articles as the petitioner will go to
USA. The forced her to demand cash from her parents. The respondent is staying in
Delhi along with his parents and the petitioner stayed for some time at her
matrimonial home but the mother in law was forcing the petitioner to work and said
they will not help her financially. The respondent used to send Rs.25000 for six
months and it was very difficult for the petitioner to manage for six months in such a
costly city like Delhi. The financial help was provided by her parents as when she is
needed the most.
6. The respondent is working in a PR agency in New York and is residing as a
permanent resident of USA and earns 8000/- USD close to 6,00,000 INR per month
and can take his wife but intentionally he has left the petitioners in India without any
source of money and he sends just Rs.50000/- per year with repeated request by the
petitioner. The respondent has no liability except to maintain the petitioner and his
minor daughter Khushboo.

OBSERVATION:

On hearing of this case, I observed that the petitioner taken the time so that they think
about whether they live together with her husband or (not) that the counsellor given
the time more than 15 days so that they try to solve all matters between each other

Next Date of Hearing: 20/05/2021

 CASE NO 15
IN THE COURT OF SH. JAGMINDER SINGH, DWARKA COURT,
NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

PRIYANKA AND ORS .........................................................................PETITIONER

VERSUS

UMER .................................................................................................. RESPONDENT

Date of Hearing: 03/05/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: PETITION FILED U/S 125 OF CrPc, 1973

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The Petitioner and the Respondent got married in 2018 as per the Hindu customs
and rites.
2. The Respondent started misbehaving with the Petitioner just after their marriage.
He used to ask her to bring him money to pay-off his debt.
3. He used to threaten the Petitioner and beat her every time she refused to get him
money because the father of the Petitioner was an auto driver.
4. He even drank poisonous substance to falsely imprison her brothers.
5. The Petitioner has filed for Divorce and Rs. 25,000 p.m. as maintenance.

OBSERVATION:
In the matter listed above, the Divorce and Maintenance has been provided to the
Petitioner.

Next Date of Hearing: 31/05/2021

 CASE LAW-16
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH, DWARKA COURT,
NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

NANDLAL ……COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

SARTHAK .….ACCUSED

Date of Hearing: 04/05/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: COMPLAINT U/S 464/465 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE,

1860

BRIEF FACTS:

1. Sarthak, the accused had 1000 sq. yard plot out of which he sold 400 sq. yard to
father of Nandlal in 1984 along with 80 sq. yard donated plot, for temple.
2. That the Father of Nandlal made a temple in 1985, and 1987 he passed away. After
him, his son Nandlal looked over the temple.
3. That In 2011 he told the colony people that he will repair the temple as the “Murtis”
of temple got “Khandit”.
4. After that he demolished the temple and sold 276 sq. yard of that temple to
someone, after that 124+80 sq. yard left, now Neeraj made false paper of that said
property and tried to sell it.
5. That even after getting several warnings he still tried to sell out the above stated
property for this personal benefits.
OBSERVATION:
On this date of hearing, the arguments were preceded between two opposite counsels
on the facts of issues.

Next Date of Hearing: 01/08/2021

 CASE NO 17
IN THE COURT OF SH. GOPAL SINGH, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANUPAMA ....... COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

MEGHNA .......... ACCUSED

Date of Hearing: 12/05/2021

SUBJECT MATTER: COMPLAINT U/S 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881

BRIEF FACTS:

1. The complainant Smt. Anupama and the accused Meghna were having friendly
relations with each other.
2. The accused has formed several groups of members and from each member of the
individual group from she was collecting proportionate monthly instalments mutually
agreed by the members on the basis of final lump sum payment and the money so
collected was paid every month to one member after deducting the commission of the
organizer i.e. the accused till all the members receive the payment. The said group
formation is known as ‘kitty’.
3. The complainant along with her sister in law namely Devika became members in
one of the kitty where the amount to each member was to be paid as Rs.5,00,000/- and
each member was required to pay monthly instalment of Rs.50,000/- starting from
April 2005.
4. When the payment became due the accused showed her inability to pay the said
amount on the ground that she was having financial constraint as some of the
members of the kitty have not paid their dues to the accused therefore the accused
requested the complainant and her sister in law to take the aforesaid payment after few
months for which the accused asked them to accept post-dated cheque.
5. The accused in discharge of her liability had issued one post-dated cheque as
detailed below in favour of the complainant:- A/c payee’s cheques drawn on ICICI
bank, Rs. 5,00,000/-. That the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque to her
Banker i.e. ICICI bank, New Delhi, but the same was returned unpaid by the Banker
of the accused with the returning memo with the endorsement “A/c Closed”.
6. The complainant sent a legal notice through her counsel and the same was sent by
registered AD post, UPC and Courier whereby complainant demanded her money
back i.e. the amount of the cheque within 15 days from the receipt of the legal notice.
7. The cause of action has arisen on account of the accused failure to pay/tender the
said amount despite the expiry of the time of payment mentioned in the said legal
notice to the complainant.
8. The cause of action is still subsisting as the accused have failed to make the
payment of the said amount till date to the complainant.

OBSERVATION:
The matter listed today for the purpose of cross examination of Harshlata. The cross
questioning was done by the Complainant counsel before the Hon’ble Court and was
given the next date hearing.
Next Date of Hearing: 28/10/2021