AMITY LAW SCHOOL
NOIDA
SUMMER INTERNSHIP – NTCC 2022 LWSI102
INTERNSHIP AT
D.P. GUPTA AND COMPANY
LAW OFFICES[DELHI]
Submitted to:
DR/ ABHILASHA RAJ
FACULTY / INDUSTRY GUIDE
AMITY LAW SCHOOL NOIDA
Submitted by:
AAKASH AGGARWAL
A3221519013
SECTION-A
BBA LLB (H)
Page 1 of 14
TABLE OF CASES
SR NO CASE NAME NAME OF COURT
1 Yamita Rai Asthana Vs Chief Metropolitan
Ashutosh Rai Asthana Magistrate, KKD, Delhi
2 DLF vs LEIGHTON CHIEF
INDIA METROPOLITAN
CONTRACTORS(P) MAGISTRATE, KKD,
LTD. NEW DELHI
3 Honey Barua vs Manish Metropolitan
Aggarwal Magistrate, KKD, New
DELHI
4 Dulhan Bewa vs Aisha & Metropolitan
Anr. Magistrate, Shahdara,
KKD, Delhi
5 STATE VS RAHUL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS, DELHI
6 ABC SHARMA vs XYZ NATIONAL
PVT LTD COMPANY LAW
TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH
7 M/s Shri KDR Fabrics vs Metropolitan
M/s Mahajan Tripal Magistrate, KKD, New
Udyog Delhi
8 ABCD PHARMA VS DEBT RECOVERY
PNB TRIBUNAL, NEW
DELHI
9 STATE VS. SHEHJAD DISTRICT &
@ SAMEER SESSIONS JUDGE,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS
HAZARI COURT,
DELHI
10 Ashish vs State Metropolitan
Magistrate, KKD, New
Page 2 of 14
Delhi
11 ABC V.S STATE OF UP High Court of
Allahabad
12 UNION OF INDIA VS Supreme Court of
PRATEEK KHANNA India.
Page 3 of 14
1.
NAME OF THE CASE: YAMITA RAI ASTHANA vs ASHUTOSH RAI
ASTHANA
NAME OF THE COURT: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, KKD,
NEW DELHI
FACTS: Yamita Rai Asthana approached the Police in East Delhi to file a
complaint against her elder brother, Ashutosh Rai Asthana in regard to some
fraud conducted by him in a business run by both of them having 50-50 percent
ownership, each. Yamita alleged that Ashutosh transferred some funds from the
Business’s Current Account to his friends Account in order to deceive her. When
Ashutosh was made aware of the knowledge that his sister is about to file a police
complaint, he approached the concerned Police Station and allegedly, bribed the
Officials to not register her FIR and force her to settle the matter quoting different
reasons like her time will be wasted, she will have to come to court daily, it will
be expensive for her to fight such case, etc. Now when the Police refused to file
her FIR, she filed a complaint u/s 156 of the CRPC, the present case.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the complaint filed by Yamita before this court is
maintainable and whether the Police wrongly did not file her FIR?
CURRENT POSITION: The Learned CMM has heard the arguments for both
side and the case is likely to be listed in the month of July for final orders.
Page 4 of 14
2.
NAME OF THE CASE: DLF vs LEIGHTON INDIA CONTRACTORS (P)
LTD.
NAME OF THE COURT: HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FACTS: DLF Limited (“DLF”) entered into an agreement with Leighton India
Contractors (P) Ltd (“Leighton”) for a certain residential project of DLF for a
sum of Rs. 1437,82,27,087/-. Leighton presented 6 Bank Guarantees (“BGs”), as
per a certain clause of the agreement. These 6 BGs were further divided into 4
Performance Bank Guarantees (“PBGs”) and 2 Retention Bank Guarantees
(“RBGs”). The Agreement provided for a completion date but with mutual
agreement it was extended to June 2018. Leighton claimed that it had completed
the work as per the original completion date and some minor work was left to be
completed. As per Leighton, neither the Independent Engineer nor DLF pointed
out any defect. Despite Leighton’s request, DLF did not issue the Completion
Certificate and instead encased the BGs. After this, Leighton filed an application
u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 19964 (“Arbitration Act”). DLF,
contending this application submitted that since the BGs have been encashed
already, the Application has become infructuous and that invocation of BGs can
be requested only in matters pertaining to ‘Special Equities’ & ‘Egregious Fraud’.
The Court agreed with the contention of DLF only in part and directed it to
deposit the BGs amount in a Fixed Deposit (“FD”). Both, DLF & Leighton,
dissatisfied with the said order, filed appeals before the Division Bench of the
Delhi High Court.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Court can decide substantial issues while
determining an Application u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act?
Page 5 of 14
CURRENT STAGE: The Division Bench dismissed the appeal Leighton and
allowed the appeal filed by DLF. The Court held that the Single Judge of Delhi
High Court had no occasion to direct DLF to deposit the amount encashed from
BGs in FD, to secure the said amount it had encashed through invocation of BGs.
It was held that Substantive Questions, like whether the BGs were encashed
illegally, have to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal only, as it is the method of
Dispute Resolution decided by the parties mutually, and not a Court u/s 9 of the
Arbitration Act. Further, the Tribunal has to decide if DLF will have to furnish
any security in regard to the claims / counter claims.
3.
NAME OF THE CASE: Honey Barua vs Manish Aggarwal
NAME OF THE COURT: Metropolitan Magistrate, KKD, New Delhi
FACTS: Honey Barua was approached by Manish Aggarwal in order to have a
business relationship wherein Honey Barua was supposed to supply raw material
to Manish. In regard to the said supply, Manish served Honey Barua with 3
Cheques. After the supply of the Raw Material by Honey Barua, Manish
instructed him to encash the said cheques after 2 weeks. After the said period
when Honey reached the Bank to encash the Cheques, the Bank returned them
with a Return Memo stating “Insufficient Funds”. When Honey told Manish
about the situation, he said he will give new cheques but then he started ignoring
his calls and emails. After this behavior of his and his inability to commit other
financial commitments, Honey served a Notice u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and later filed a case before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Page 6 of 14
ISSUE: Whether Manish Agarwal is liable under Section 138 of NI Act?
CURRENT POSITION: Both parties were told to present their evidence and the
case is at a very advanced stage. Matter is likely to be listed in September for
Final Arguments.
4.
NAME OF THE CASE: STATE VS RAHUL
NAME OF THE COURT: DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH WEST
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
Facts: That the applicant/accused is working as a security guard at PVR
Vikaspuri, Delhi. That a F.I.R was registered by the Police officials of the P.S.
Kanjahawala, Delhi on the complaint of one Mr. Hari Prakash U/s
419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R by the
complainant namely Mr. Hari Prakash that some unknown person fraudulently
withdrawn money from his bank account. It is further submitted that as per the
complaint made by the complainant it is clearly stated by him that one unknown
person namely Deepak has withdrawn a sum of Rs.25, 00,000/- from his bank
account through a Cheque. It is further submitted that there is no mentioning of
the name of
applicant/accused in the entire F.I.R. That the complainant and applicant/accused
have compromised and complainant has no objections if bail is granted to
applicant/accused and complainant is giving no objection certificate along with
the affidavit.
Page 7 of 14
CURRENT POSITION: Second Bail Application On Behalf Of
Applicant/Accused Namely Rahul Kumar S/O Sh. Rajender Lal For Grant Of
Regular Bail Under Section 439 Of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973. )
5.
NAME OF THE CASE: Dulhan Bewa vs Aisha & Anr.
NAME OF THE COURT: Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, KKD, New
Delhi
FACTS: Dulhan Bewa approached the Police to file an FIR against Aisha, a co-
worker stating that she assaulted his younger son on the pretext of playing with
him. Being a Co-worker, he first complained to his superiors about her and when
all that went in vain, he approached the Police. When he was about to do so, his
colleague informed him that she happens to be the niece of a Senior Inspector.
But despite of this fact, he went to the police station however, as apprehended,
the Police refused to file his FIR. After this he filed a complaint u/s 156 CRPC
before the Metropolitan Magistrate, thus the present case.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the complaint filed by Yamita before this court is
maintainable and whether the Police wrongly did not file her FIR?
Current Position: The case if likely to be listed in the month of October for Final
Arguments.
Page 8 of 14
6.
NAME OF THE CASE: ABC SHARMA vs XYZ PVT LTD
NAME OF THE COURT: NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH
FACTS: Syndicate Bank filed an application u/s 8 & 9 of the Insolvency &
Bankruptcy Code, 20162 (“IBC”) against XYZ Pvt. Ltd which was admitted by
the NCLT in 2018. Mr. ABC Sharma was appointed as the Interim Resolution
Professional and then the Resolution Professional with 93% votes from the
Committee of Creditors. In accordance with Section 15 of IBC, ABC, in 2018,
made Public Announcement. ABC then filed an Interlocutory Application u/s
43 of the IBC, which talks about Preferential Transactions, the present case.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the IA filed by ABC is maintainable or not?
CURRENT STAGE: The Tribunal observed that the present IA had certain
discrepancies like XYZ was presented as Respondent No. 1, the Tribunal
wanted to first decide whether the IA is maintainable or not. ABC , u/s 43, had
to formulate an opinion, on or before the 75 th day from the date on which the
Application u/s 8 & 9 was admitted, regarding preferential transactions. The
Tribunal noted that the ABC failed to formulate an opinion and determine the
nature of the transactions by XYZ. Further, this application was filed after the
Resolution Plan was admitted and the New management had taken over, which
made the role of ABC functus officio and even if there were preferential
transactions, neither ABC nor the New Management of XYZ can pursue an
Page 9 of 14
application for the same. In light of the above, the Tribunal held that the IA is
not maintainable and stands dismissed.
7.
NAME OF THE CASE: M/s Shri KDR Fabrics vs M/s Mahajan Tripal Udyog
NAME OF THE COURT: Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi.
FACTS: KDR Fabrics was approached by Tripal Udyog to supply a certain
amount of cloth for their business of Tripal as they were planning to expand their
business. The deal was that Mahajan will make the payment after 2 weeks from
the date of receiving the ordered amount of cloth. The supply was done 2016 and
on the same date, Mahajan Udyog provided KDR with post-dated 1 cheque. On
the date of the said cheque, KDR informed the responsible personnel about
encashing the cheque and they said go for the same. When KDR furnished the
cheque, the bank returned the same with a Return Memo stating “Account
Blocked”.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether M/s Mahajan Tripal Udyog is liable under Section 138
of NI Act?
CURRENT POSITION: KDR filed a complaint u/s 138 before the MM in 2016
only. Now the case is likely to be listed in September and Bailable Warrants were
issued against Tripal Udyog.
8.
NAME OF THE CASE: ABCD PHARMA VS PNB
NAME OF THE COURT: DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
FACTS: ABCD PHARMA, a partnership firm, approached PNB to secure a loan
Page 10 of 14
to set up its business in around 2013. The Loan Amount was extended from time
to time and a Cash- Credit Facility was also granted to ABCD by PNB for daily
operations. PNB, against the said loan, had mortgaged a property of ABCD
situated in Muzaffarnagar. In around December 2018, ABCD became irregular
with its EMIs and finally their account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset
in 2019. SBI initiated actions against ABC under RDB Act, 19931. Under the
RDB Act, PNB filed an Original Application in Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Dehradun to recover the amount granted by it. ABCD contended that the OA filed
by PNB in DRT cannot be maintained as their loan account was restructured but
still the bank initiated the proceedings. Under the Restructuring Agreement,
ABCD was not supposed to make any payment whatsoever for 6 months and
then EMIs were payable.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether OA filed by PNB is maintainable when a
Restructuring Agreement has been entered by parties?
CURRENT STAGE: The case is still pending before the Registrar, Debt
Recovery Tribunal. The matter is likely to be listed in the month of October
2022.
9.
NAME OF THE CASE: STATE VS. SHEHJAD @ SAMEER
NAME OF THE COURT: DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
FACTS: That the Applicant/Accused Shehjad @ Sameer (Aged about 30 years)
S/o [Link] R/o [Link]. 14, Gali no.4, 3rd Floor, West Laxmi Market, Geeta
Colony, New Delhi-110031 and a permanent citizen of India. That the
Applicant/Accused has been arrested by the Police Official of P.S. Timarpur on
Page 11 of 14
20.03.2021 and he is in J.C. since 20.03.2021 in the present case and he is falsely
implicated and arrested in several
other cases registered in different police stations. That on the day of the arrest
when the Police Officials alleged that he is involved in the present case as well
as several other cases the FIR of which were registered in different police stations
the Applicant/Accused was present in the house bearing no. [Link].14, Gali no.4,
3rd Floor, West Laxmi Market, Geeta Colony, New [Link] the
Applicant/Accused is falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case.
That as per the allegation that on 17.03.2021 at about 06:30 AM two unknown
biker came to the shop of the deceased (wife of the complainant) and after
committing the robbery one of them shot the wife of complainant and both of
them ran away from the crime scene. It is submitted that the name of the main
accused who has shot the deceased and killed the wife of complainant on
17.03.2021 at Majnu ka Tila while committing the robbery is Rizwan S/o Saieed
who is the real brother of accused person namely Furkan @ Faizan. That on the
day of the incident i.e. on 17.03.2021 accused person namely Furkan @ Faizan
along with his brother namely Rizwan committed a robbery at about 6:30 AM in
which the FIR has already been registered. It is submitted that the crime/robbery
was captured in CCTV. It is pertinent to mentioned that both the accused are
clearly identifiable in the CCTV footage while committing the robbery and one
of them was carrying the pistol in his hand.
CURRENT POSITION: First Application For Bail U/S.439 Cr.P.C. On Behalf
Of Applicant/Accused Shehjad @ Sameer S/O Sh. Habib R/O [Link]. 14, Gali
No.4, 3 Rd Floor, West Laxmi Market, Geeta Colony, NEW DELHI-110031.
10.
NAME OF THE CASE: Ashish vs State
NAME OF THE COURT: Metropolitan Magistrate, KKD, New Delhi
Page 12 of 14
FACTS: Ashish was involved in a tussle with his neighbors wherein one of them
started filing false FIR just to irritate them and defame them in the society. When
FIRs were started being filed on others, Ashish, on this apprehension filed an
Anticipatpry Bail Application before the Court quoting different reasons and that
false FIR is being filed in order to harass Ashish.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Anticipatory Bail under section 438 CRPC can be
granted?
Current Position: The Court of MM heard the arguments in full length and
granted Anticipatory Bail to Ashish in light of different facts and evidence put by
him before the Court.
11.
NAME OF THE CASE: ABC V.S STATE OF UP
NAME OF THE COURT: High Court of Allahabad
FACTS: In this case, the father of the appellant filed a police complaint claiming
that his daughter is missing. During the investigation, it was discovered that the
daughter of the claimant had married appellant no. 2 out of her own will, and the
marriage certificate was shared by the appellant to her family through WhatsApp.
With the awareness of the wedlock of the appellant, the investigating officer,
rather than the statement of appellant no. 1 in her place of residence, forced on
recording her statements in the police station only.
CURRENT STAGE: The court, in this case, came heavily on the behaviour of
the IO and other authorities, which were not only accountable for forcing a
Page 13 of 14
woman record her statements in the police station but also alarming her about the
false case that her parents may register to the police, which will result the arrest
of her husband. The court further held that there is no need for permission of the
clan, family, or the community in the situations where two adults have willingly
decided to enter into a wedlock.
12.
NAME OF THE CASE: UNION OF INDIA V.S PRATEEK KHANNA
NAME OF THE COURT: Supreme Court of India.
FACTS: In this case, the applicant company didn’t deposit its quarterly returns
as stated by the NDPS (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013 and
the applicant’s company purchased 896 grams of acetic anhydride and 1.885 kg
of amphetamine. Notices in S-67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 were issued to the
applicant. During a search on the information given, a search was executed which
resulted in the exposure of 9650 kgs of acetic anhydride, and the accused was
held liable under the NDPS Act. The accused later appealed for bail before the
High Court and high court granted him bail on the ground of him having a clean
past and being an educated person.
CURRENT STAGE: The Supreme Court of India ruled out the judgement that
the High Court has misjudged in granting bail to the accused, as the High Court
has placed the inverse burden of proof, which is on accused in cases of NDPS
according to S68(J) of the NDPS act, 1985 and observing the educational
background and clear past of the accused. Thus, the Supreme Court found the
High court has misjudged in granting bail to the accused and called off the bail
allowed to the accused.
Page 14 of 14
