Name: Priyanshu Verma

Course: BBA LL.B

P.R.N No.: 18010224037
Group: A

Title of Observation: Criminal Proceedings

Name of the Court: In the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi

Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
Date of Observation: 1.03.2023
Case No. 1

Title of the case: Smt. Sangeeta vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi W.P (C) 2645/2023

Stage of the case: petition filed under Article 226 and article 227 of Constitution of India seeking interim
protection against the actions of the opposite party.

Appearance made by the parties: No part appeared, only the counsels of both party appeared

Proceedings of the case: so petitioner here requested the court to pass directions to opposite party to not
demolish her house situated at Pitampura, Delhi, as the demolition is set to be carried out without any prior
notice to the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks regularization of the existing construction in order to minimize
the loss during the demolition and other construction activities. The counsel for opposite party
acknowledged and said that application should be presented before the appellate tribunal of MCD where the
petitioner will be given chance of hearing and then speaking order will be passed against her application for
regularization.

Short Notes: Even though there was another remedy available to the petitioner but considering her health,
the opposite party accepted the fact that proper notice will be issued to her before demolition work. but she
also has to appear before authorized officer.

Order of the court for that day: Court held that no precipitate action be taken against the petitioner in
pursuance of demolition notice till two weeks after passing of the order by concerned officer

Next date of Hearing: Petition was disposed of in whole.

Name of the Court: Additional Sessions Judge Swati Katiyar, Karkardooma Court, East, New Delhi
Date of Observation: 7.03.2023
Case No. 2

Title of the case: State vs. Sunny BAIL MATTERS/327/2023

Stage of the case: Bail application filed

Appearance made by the parties: Accused is absconding while for other party the learned additional public
prosecutor for state was present.

Proceedings of the case: bail application was filed under section 438 Criminal procedure code, he was
accused of theft of iron rods along with a co accused Sagar, counsel for accused agued that accused has been
falsely implicated and has no role in the theft, accused has clean antecedents and will also participate the
investigation when required by the investigation officer. Investigation officer also opposed the bail
application stating that even after sending several notices accused is evading the process of law, public
prosecutor also opposed the application by arguing that the security supervisor has seen them and family of
the accused is also not disclosing the whereabouts.

Short Notes: The Additional sessions judge observed both the parties, questioned the counsel of accused
about his whereabouts but the counsel was not able to answer it but made stated that he will be responsible
for his appearance on the next hearing, of which judge made a note and then heard the opposite party also
heard the statements of investigation officer.

Order of the court for that day: After listening to both the sides, judge dismissed the bail application of the
accused without granting him bail, as there was an eye witness present who deposed of that he saw the
accused and the co accused stealing iron rods, several notices has been given at the residence of accused to
join investigation but he is absconding till date , judge also directed custodial interrogation of the accused to
unearth the entire truth.
Next date of Hearing: Bail application disposed off in whole.
Name of the Court: In the High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal
Date of Observation: 7/02/2023

Case No. 3

Title of the case: Sarnala Sreedhar vs. Stae NCT of Delhi CRL. M.A 6246/2023

Stage of the case: Bail application was filed

Appearance made by the parties: none of the parties appeared.

Proceedings of the case: accused was charged under sections 408/409/420/467/468/120B of Indian Penal
code. Bail application was moved on 6.03.2023 before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the
counsel for complainant gave the statement that they are willing to enter into settlement with the accused and
they have mutually drafted a settlement. Further counsel also stated that they have no objection to bail
application of accused but it should be subject to terms and conditions of settlement being arrived at.
Investigation officer of the case also gave the statement that, no right of victim is being affected if accused is
given bail, but despite these statements the additional chief metropolitan magistrate did not grant the bail
because the records were voluminous, though remand application for judicial custody for 14 days was
allowed, petitioner moved to high court, where counsel for petitioner has mentioned about the draft
settlement and also an demand draft of rupees 8 crores which they are willing to give to the complainant as a
part of settlement.

Order of the court for that day: Hon’ble justice after hearing both the sides held that that the complainant is
ready and willing to accept the settlement amount and also has no objection to the bail application of the
accused, it will be appropriate for the learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate ti dispose of the
application after hearing both the sides on 9.03.2023 and matter is listed for urgent hearing as the accused is
resident of Hyderabad and is taken into custody on 19.02.2023, so counsel for both the parties must be
present.

Next date of Hearing: 09.03.2023

 Title of Observation: Civil Proceedings

Name of the Court: Ms. Neetu Nagar, Civil Judge-02 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi
Date of Observation: 6.03.2023
Case No. 1

Title of the case: Canara Bank vs. Mr. Vahid CS SCJ/856/2022

Stage of the case: Fresh Suit filed

Appearance made by the parties: Mukan jain on behalf of plaintiff was present, No one on behalf of
defendant was present

Proceedings of the case: Fresh Vakalatnama filed on behalf of plaintiff, same was taken on record, although
learned counsel for plaintiff stated to the court that she has instructions from the cline to withdraw the suit as
defendant has already made the outstanding amount of rupees 16,600/-. And subsequently the bank account
of the defendant has been closed, she requested that the she may be permitted to withdraw the suit.

Short Notes: Suiit was filed under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code 1908 to recover the remaining of rupees
16,600/- from the plaintiff. Order 37 provides for summary suit, so the bank (plaintiff) without going into the
regular trial process which can be lengthy and time consuming can move to court for recovery of the amount
owed to them.

Order of the court for that day: after hearing the statements made by learned counsel for plaintiff and
separately recording the same, the suit was disposed of as withdrawn.

Next date of Hearing: Suit withdrawn

Name of the Court: : Ms. Neetu Nagar, Civil Judge-02 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi

Date of Observation: 6.03.2023

Case No. 2

Title of the case: Sunny George vs. M/S Prince Enterprises CS SCJ/527/2022

Stage of the case: fresh case filed

Appearance made by the parties: Counsel for plaintiff was present and defendant in person was present

Proceedings of the case: Before this stage the case went for mediation and both the parties were not able to
arrive at a settlement. Learned counsel for defendant stated that he would file a written statement during the
course of the same day.
Fresh Vakalatnama was filed on the same day by the counsel of defendant and it was taken on record, and he
was apprised of the date and purpose fixed.
Order of the court for that day: Copy of the Written statement to be supplied to the learned counsel for
plaintiff and copy of replication should be filed by the plaintiff within the stipulated period and a copy in
advance to be supplied to opposite party 7 days prior to the date fixed for next hearing.

Next date of Hearing: 12.7.2023

Name of the Court: Ms. Neetu Nagar, Civil Judge-02 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi

Date of Observation: 6.03.2023

Case No. 3

Title of the case: M/S Adhikari Construction Company vs. Dizine RDM Energy Private Ltd. CS
SCJ/765/2021

Stage of the case: Summons not served

Appearance made by the parties: Proxy counsel for plaintiff was present and no one present on behalf of
defendant
Proceedings of the case: The case file was received by the judge by way of transfer, after the plaintiff was
not able to serve summons as the defendant was never present at his registered residence and was avoiding
the summons, plaintiff filed an application under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC, stating that service though
ordinary means has not been possible for several last dates. Application was duly supported with affidavit
and the learned counsel for plaintiff also stated that the current address is last known address and that he
does not have any information regarding any other address or email or whatsapp number of defendant. After
observing the circumstances and hearing the parties, judge allowed the application that is service of
summons via local newspaper namely “Veer Arjun” being circulated at the last known locality of defendant,
then on 6.03.2023 judge observed that the plaintiff has not taken steps in accordance of the previous order
(aforementioned details) .

Short Notes: order 5 Rule 20 provides the procedure to serve summons when the defendant refuses to accept
service or cannot be found, as the plaintiff was not aware of any other addresses of the defendant neither he
has knowledge of defendant’s whatsapp number basically he does not have any means to communicate with
the plaintiff and hence he filed an application under order 5 rule 20 of Civil procedure code.

Order of the court for that day: Court after observing that the plaintiff has not taken steps in compliance of
previous order, held that let previous order dated 18.11.2022 be complied with fresh and steps be taken
within 7 working days from today that is from 6.03.2023

Next date of Hearing: 04.07.2023