BATCH 2018-23
FINAL REPORT OF MY INTERNSHIP
HIGHT COUT -II
Submitted to: Submitted by:
DR.NIBEDITA BASU RAGHAV KUMAR KHADRIA
ASSITANT PROFFESSOR ROLL NO-91801041001
FACULTY OF LAW, MARWADI UNIVERSITY BCOM.LLB
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who gave me this opportunity and
have helped me in successfully completing the High Court Internship in virtual mode. I wish
to thank Faculty of Law, Marwadi University for giving me this opportunity to acquaint with
the working and procedures of Gujrat High Court at the first instance, to do the necessary
research work and increase the accessibility of the practical aspect of gaining knowledge
along with the theoretical ones done at the University.
At the outset, I would also like to thank and I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Advocate
Aditya Pandya sir, whose constant guidance, help and support, suggestions and
encouragement that helped me all the time during the internship understanding the working/
procedures of the Online Courts, research and writing of this report also.
It is my radiant sentiment to place on record my best regards, deepest sense of gratitude to
their juniors working under him for their careful and precious guidance, which were
extremely valuable for my study in both theoretical and practical.
I perceive as this opportunity as a big milestone in my career development. I will strive to use
gained skills and knowledge in the best possible way, and I will continue to work on their
improvement, In order to attain desired career objectives. Hope to continue cooperation with
all of you in the future.
CERTIFICATE
TABLE CONTENT
1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
2. CERTIFICATE
3. TABLE OF CONTENT
4. INTRODUCTION
5. INTERNSHIPT OVERVIEW
6. CONCLUSION
7. EXPERIENCE SHARING
8. APENDIX
9. Annexure
INTRODUCTION
I, having completed my 3rd year of law school, like any other law student was nervous cum
excited to start my second High court internship and it was my fourth opportunity to go to an
actual court and observe actual court proceedings in virtual mode.
High Court means “The Principal Civil Courts of Original Jurisdiction in each state and
union territory”, so this particular internship was very much helpful in knowing and learning
about how things work at the Second root level or to say the second stage of our Indian
Legal System i.e. the High Court. It also taught me courtroom proceedings and court
mannerism and also the very basics of litigation which will prove to be of great help in my
subsequent internships.
I visited high courts during my whole internship and tried to work on different types of
criminal and one civil matters during my internship and gained knowledge on different types
of criminal matters by helping them in researching relevant case laws and finding answers to
the build issues of the cases. The main tasks during the internship was attending the Gujarat
High Court proceedings in virtual mode which was live in YouTube and reading case briefs
in our free time. The first thing which I used to do that my supervisor gives me to questions
problem said that find related laws and solution with various recent judgement and case laws.
In Online internships, I have done research on constitutional law, contract law, criminal law
as well as business law. Sir, practices in Gujarat High Court and various Tribunal Court that
was like an added advantage. Over a period of this internship, I got a chance to witness the
proceedings for once in all the courts. Although I could not learn the procedures in detail for
all of them but at least few of them.
Internship Work Overview
(WEEK- 1)
In the First Week, I was so excited because this is my second Internship in Gujarat High
Court in Virtual Mode. In the second internship I got my assignment that what is criminal
breach of trust which was given in sec 405 under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and I also studied
about sec 403 IPC 1860 which defines misappropriation and dishonest. In this study I read
various case law, one of these case law is Jaswant Rai Manilal Akhaney vs State of
Bombay. In this case it was held that when securities are pledged with a bank for specific
purpose on specified conditions, it would amount to entrustment. Similarly, properties
entrusted to directors of a company would amount to entrustment, because directors are to
some extent in a position of trustee. However, when money was paid as illegal gratification,
there was no question of entrustment.
In this assignment I have also studied cheating which is defined sec 415 of Indian Penal Code
1860. It means whoever fraudulently or dishonestly deceives a person in order to induce that
person to deliver a property to any person or to consent to retain any property. If a person
intentionally induces a person to do or omit to do any act which he would not have done if he
was not deceived to do so and the act has caused harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property, then the person who fraudulently, dishonestly or intentionally induced
the other person is said to cheat. Any dishonest concealment of facts which can deceive a
person to do an act which he would not have done otherwise is also cheating within the
meaning of this section.
(Week 2)
In the Second Week, I got my 2nd assignment which insolvency and bankruptcy code, 2016.
Main focus on this assignment is Sec 6 to 10. Sec 6 to 10 talks about the Insolvency
resolution process of the company. In this study I read about what’s the process of insolvency
resolution plan, who initiate and financial creditor.
In this week I got my fourth assignment which is on negotiable instrument act, 1881.
Can Notice be issued under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 beyond 30 days
from the date of dishonour of cheque?
In this read about the dishonour of cheque which is on mention sec 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881. It says that Sec 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stated notice
should be to drawer within 30 days. IF Notice will be issued beyond 30 days the case is not
main table. In this study I read one of these case law the Amit Kumar Mishra vs Gov. of
s AMIT KUMAR MISHRA v/s THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR):-
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal complaint against the accused represented by
Counsel Nihit Dalmia, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on
founding that Legal Notice of demand was served beyond 30 days by the complainant.
(Week -3)
In the third week, I work in my fourth assignment that can sec 25 of C.R.P.C is main table in
living relationship. In this study read about the sec 125 of Criminal procedure code is not
main table in living relationship because sec 125 is only main table for wife, children and
parents but couple is having in living relationship then they have a child so, due to sec 125(1)
b is main table. Father of child has to give maintenance to his illegitimate child till when
he/she able to maintain itself. In this study I read one of these case laws Malti v. State of
U.P., the Allahabad High Court held that a woman living with a man could not be equated as
his wife. In this case, the woman was a cook in the man's house, and she stayed with him and
shared an intimate relationship. The Court however refused to extend the meaning of the
word wife as denoted in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to include such a
live-in partner's maintenance claims.
(Week -4)
In the fourth Week, I work in my Fifth Assignment that difference between pledge and
bailment. In this study basic things of bailment and pledge.
LAW LEARNT/ DEAL WITH
The law that I deal with are the following:
1. Indian Penal Code
2. Instrument Negotiable Act, 1881
3. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
4. Criminal Procedure Code
5. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
6. Constitution Of India
EXPERIENCE SHARING
I have learning many things during my internship in last 4 weeks in month of June. However,
the learning are the following:
I. I learn basic thing of Law.
II. I have how to research in virtual mode.
III. I have learn insolvency resolution process
IV. I have learn dishonour of Cheque.
V. I heard that English is Compulsory in Gujrat High court.
CONCLUSION
While my internship in High Court In virtual Mode. I have learned and felt so many things in
online mode. In my first online internship I have focused on my research skills to find the
solution in various things in internet resources. Overall experience is very good.
.
APPENDIX
1ST WEEK INSTERNSHIP REPORT OF HIGHT COURT -2
DATE NATURE OF WORK LEARNING REMARKS
DONE OUTCOME
1-01- Got Some work regarding
2020 Indian Penal Code- 1860
2-01- Work Submitted Read about Criminal
2020 Breach of Trust and
Misappropriation
03-01- Got Some work Related
2020 C.R.P.C
04-01-
2020
05-01- Work Submitted Read About the
2020 Procedure of Domestic
Violence
06-01-
2020
07-01- Got some related to
2020 Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016
2ND WEEK INSTERNSHIP REPORT OF HIGHT COURT -2
DATE NATURE OF WORK LEARNING REMARKS
DONE OUTCOME
08-08- WORK SUBMIITED, Insolvency Process of
2021 Company
09-08- Got some Work regarding
2021 Negotiable Instrument Act,
1881
10-08-
2021
11-08-
2020
12-08- Work Submitted Procedure of
2020 Dishonour of Check
13-08-
2020
14-08- Got some related to C.R.PC.
2020 SEC 125
3RD WEEK INSTERNSHIP REPORT OF HIGHT COURT -2
DATE NATURE OF WORK LEARNING REMARKS
DONE OUTCOME
15-08-
2021
16-08- WORK SUBMIITED Read about the living
2021 relationship.
17-08- GET SOME WORK
2021 RELATED TO Indian
Contract Act,
18-08-
2021
19-08- Work submitted Pledge and Bailment.
2021
20-08-
2021
21-08- Get some work related to
2021 Constitution law
4rd WEEK INSTERNSHIP REPORT OF HIGHT COURT -2
DATE NATURE OF WORK LEARNING REMARKS
DONE OUTCOME
22-08-
2021
23-08- WORK SUBMIITED Read about
2021 Fundamental Rights
24-08-
2021
25-08- Got some work related to
2021 emergency provision in
Indian
26-08-
2021
27-08-
2021
28-08- Work Submitted. Read constitutional
2021 provision on provision
ANNEXURE
Internship Work: 1
Q. What is Criminal Breach of Trust?
: - Criminal breach of trust define under sec 405 of Indian Penal Code, 1850. It means
‘dishonest and misappropriation’ or ‘conversion to own use’ another property. The offender
was entrusted with property or with dominion over property. The offender dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of
that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is
to be discharged. It is offence of criminal misappropriation under sec 403 of Indian Penal
Code, 1850.
The essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust is the accused must be entrusted with
property or dominion over it, He must have dishonestly misappropriated the property or
converted it to his own use or disposed of it in violation of such trust.
In Jaswant Rai Manilal Akhaney vs State of Bombay: - It was held that when securities
are pledged with a bank for specific purpose on specified conditions, it would amount to
entrustment. Similarly, properties entrusted to directors of a company would amount to
entrustment, because directors are to some extent in a position of trustee. However, when
money was paid as illegal gratification, there was no question of entrustment.
In State of UP vs Babu Ram:-
The accused, a sub-inspector (SI) of police, had gone to investigate a theft case in a village.
In the evening, he saw one person named Tika Ram coming from the side of the cannal and
hurriedly going towards a field. He appeared to be carrying something in his dhoti folds. The
accused searched him and found a bundle containing currency notes. The accused took the
bundle and later returned it. The amount returned was short by Rs. 250. The Supreme Court
held that the currency notes were handed over to the SI for a particular purpose and Tika
Ram had trusted the accused to return the money once the accused satisfied himself about it.
If the accused had taken the currency notes, it would amount to criminal breach of trust.
Q. What is cheating?
: - Cheating is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code as whoever fraudulently or
dishonestly deceives a person in order to induce that person to deliver a property to any
person or to consent to retain any property. If a person intentionally induces a person to do or
omit to do any act which he would not have done if he was not deceived to do so and the act
has caused harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, then the person who
fraudulently, dishonestly or intentionally induced the other person is said to cheat. Any
dishonest concealment of facts which can deceive a person to do an act which he would not
have done otherwise is also cheating within the meaning of this section.
In the case of Sushil Kumar Datta vs State, the accused personated himself as a scheduled
caste candidate and appeared for the examination of Indian Administrative Service. He was
appointed in that cadre because of his false representation of being a scheduled caste. It was
held by the court that he was guilty of the offence of cheating by personation under Section
416 of IPC as he did not belong to scheduled caste and falsely represented himself as
scheduled caste and hence, his conviction for cheating was held to be justified under the said
section.
In the case of S. Shankarmani v. Nibar Ranjan Parida, a lawsuit was filed for cheating by a
landlord against the bank. The bank wanted to take the landlord’s house on hire and for that,
the landlord furnished his house. He incurred a huge expense in furnishing the house but the
bank because of some reasons which were under its control could not take the house on rent.
The bank did not intend to cheat or deceive the landlord. It was held by the court that the
bank was not liable for cheating under Section 418 as the intention which plays an important
part in the offence was not present.
Difference between criminal breach of trust and cheating: - In Criminal breach of trust, there
is a proof of entrustment and in cheating, there is time of entrustment.
In Bageshwar Mishra vs Khundari AIR 1970:- For conviction for an offensive under sec 420.
It is essential for the prosecution to establish the criminal intention at the time when offense
was committed. The distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating depends upon
the intention of the accused at the time of alleged inducement which may however be hudged
by subsequent conduct.
In Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma vs state of bihar AIR 2000 SC 2341, 2000 CrLJ 2983:-
In the supreme court case it has been held that a mere breach of contract give rise to a
criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at
the beginning of the transaction. To establish the offense of cheating it is necessary to show
that be had fraudulent or dishonest intention as times of making the promise.
Q. what is Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 sec 6 to 10?
Ans: - Section 6 to 10 talks about the Company Insolvency Resolution Process,
In the sec 6 of IBC, 2016 talks about who initiate the Insolvency resolution process of
company.
Insolvency: - Insolvency is a term for when an individual or company can no longer meet
their financial obligations to lenders as debts become due. Before an insolvent company or
person gets involved in insolvency proceedings, they will likely be involved in informal
arrangements with creditors, such as setting up alternative payment arrangements. Insolvency
can arise from poor cash management, a reduction in cash inflow, or an increase in expenses.
Sec 7 of IBC Talks about Insolvency Resolution Process by Financial Creditor.
1. Financial creditor either by himself or jointly shall initiate filing of application
before NCLT against the corporate debtor for insolvency proceedings.
2. The proof of default and the name of the proposed insolvency professional to be
appointed shall be submitted along with the application
Financial Creditors under Section 7 of IBC, 2016 by Operational Creditors under Section 9 of
the IBC, 2016 and by the Corporate Debtor himself under Section 10 of the IBC, 2016.
1. NCLT may reject the application if it is of the opinion that the corporate debtor is
not default or if there is any proceeding pending against the proposed resolution
professional.
2. Within fourteen days of making application to it, NCLT has to entertain the
application.
Sec 8, 9 and 10 of IBC talks about the Application for Initiation of Insolvency Process by an
operational creditor and Corporate Applicant:-
1. An operational creditor will have to serve 10 days of prior notice to the corporate
debtor asking him to pay back the dues before initiating Insolvency resolution
process.
2. In the event of corporate debtor not paying back the amount in that time period and
doesn’t bring to the notice of operational creditor about any dispute or any
arbitration proceeding pending against it then the operational creditor can file
application for insolvency resolution.
As per provisions contained in Chapter- II of the Code, where a corporate debtor has
defaulted on the payment of dues to a financial or operational creditor, the corporate
debtor or any applicant (i.e. the financial or operational creditor) can file the
application for the initiation of insolvency resolution process along with the books of
accounts and other financial documents of the business. Furthermore, as per Section
10 (3) (b) the corporate debtor shall also file the name of the proposed resolution
professional along with the application.
Case Laws
JaypEE Group :- The Jaypee Infratech” project started its “wish town city” project in
Noida. Jaiprakash Associates Limited ( JAL) and Jaypee Infratech Limited are two
subsidiary companies of Jaypee Group. JAL allocated the letters to the homebuyers and JIL
received the payments from around 35000 homebuyers. It collected 25000 crore rupees from
around 35000 homebuyers. Years after its inception the project remains abandoned and merely a
skeleton has been built for the purpose of appeasing the homebuyers. Buyers have alleged that the
money collected for the Wish Town city was diverted to its other marquee projects like the
Formula 1 circuit and the Yamuna Expressway.
Aggrieved by the pace of the project a small group of homebuyers approached the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) but the commission did not adjudicate
on the same. The situation changed as Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India,
Dipak Misra, agreed to hear the case through a public interest litigation (PIL). Before Supreme
court agreed to hear the case, the matter came up before the Allahabad bench of National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) after a petition by the IDBI which advanced a loan that
amounted to approximately 526 crore rupees to the company. The company did not pay back to
the bank and since the bank was a secured creditor it had the right to ask for Insolvency
Resolution Process under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016.
On August 9th 2017, the Allahabad bench of NCLT ordered the appointment of any
Insolvency Resolution Professional (RP) after IDBI bank sought initiation of bankruptcy
proceedings against the company. If the NCLT admits a petition on insolvency, the board of the
company concerned is suspended and an interim resolution professional within 180 days after its
appointment has to turn the company around. The company goes into liquidation automatically
should nothing materialize within 270 days. The NCLT has appointed an insolvency professional
on 10th August 2017 providing thousands of buyers in Jaypee projects two weeks to raise claims
pertinent to their properties.
Anuj Jain, appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal, to take over the management
of Jaypee Infratech Ltd. and asked its parent company to deposit Rs 2,000 crore. The IRP was to
submit the interim resolution plan to court within 45 days considering the interest of the
homebuyers.
On September 4th 2017, Supreme Court (SC), stayed the NCLT order initiating insolvency
proceedings against Jaypee Infratech. The 30000 homebuyers whose position has become weak
after 9th August NCLT order. Their status was unclear under the Code despite paying 90% of the
price without being handed over the flats and kept pending for long.
The order from Supreme Court came following a writ petition filed by one of the
homebuyers Chitra Sharma. The court has issued notices to all parties, the company, the Noida
Authority and the UP government including the Centre. The petitioner Chitra Sharma through her
representative, Aishwarya Sinha, was questioning the constitutional validity of the insolvency
code owing it’s not recognising the right of homebuyers.
On January 8th 2018, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) moved the Supreme Court seeking
permission to initiate insolvency proceedings against Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Jaiprakash
Associates, parent company of Jaypee Infratech Ltd, is among the 12 companies against which
the RBI asked banks to file insolvency petitions.
On February 12th 2018, NCLT has extended resolution process by 90 days as 180-day timeline
expired owing to banks’ seeking a 90-day extension from NCLT to enable them to have sufficient
time to reassess defaulters under IBC norms.
On March 21st 2018, The Supreme Court allowed pro-rata disbursement of claims of
homebuyers who had opted for refund of their money.
On May 10th 2018, lenders of Jaypee Infratech rejected Lakshadweep offer of resolution.
Lakshadweep, chosen by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as the highest bidder, had offered to
buy the realty company for a Rs 28-billion loan dues write-off. Lakshadweep is a joint venture
between Suraksha Asset Reconstruction Company and Mumbai-based Dosti Realty.
On May 16th 2018, The Supreme Court stayed the liquidation proceedings against Jaypee
Infratech while asking the promoters to deposit Rs.1000 crore by June 15th to refund
homebuyers.
Q. Can Notice be issued under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 beyond 30
days from the date of dishonour of cheque?
Ans:- No, Because in Sec 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stated notice should be
to drawer within 30 days. IF Notice will be issued beyond 30 days the case is not maintable.
In the Amit Kumar Mishra vs Gov. of s AMIT KUMAR MISHRA v/s THE STATE
(GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR):- The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal
complaint against the accused represented by Counsel Nihit Dalmia, filed under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on founding that Legal Notice of demand was served
beyond 30 days by the complainant.
Case background:- The Petitioner through Counsel NIHIT DALMIA herein sought quashing
of criminal proceedings against him initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act as the respondent/complainant gave him cash loan of ₹50,000 which he promised to pay
back in eight months. However, on the due date, he only paid ₹19,500 and asked for one
month's time to pay the rest of the amount. For the same, in Dec 2016, he presented a cheque
of ₹30,500 to the respondent/complainant which went dishonoured on 02.01.2017. In
response, the respondent/complainant served legal demand notice dated 06.02.2017 via post.
The Petitioner through Counsel NIHIT DALMIA herein sought quashing of criminal
proceedings against him initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as the
respondent/complainant gave him cash loan of ₹50,000 which he promised to pay back in
eight months. However, on the due date, he only paid ₹19,500 and asked for one month's
time to pay the rest of the amount. For the same, in Dec 2016, he presented a cheque of
₹30,500 to the respondent/complainant which went dishonoured on 02.01.2017. In response,
the respondent/complainant served legal demand notice dated 06.02.2017 via post.
INTERNSHIP WORK 4
Q. Can C.R.P.C sec 125 main table in living relationship?
:- No, sec 125 of Criminal procedure code is not main table in living relationship because sec
125 is only main table for wife, children and parents but couple is having in living
relationship then they have a child so, due to sec 125(1) b is main table. Father of child has to
give maintenance to his illegitimate child till when he/she able to maintain itself.
In Malti v. State of U.P.[19], the Allahabad High Court held that a woman living with a man
could not be equated as his wife. In this case, the woman was a cook in the man's house, and
she stayed with him and shared an intimate relationship. The Court however refused to
extend the meaning of the word wife as denoted in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to include such a live-in partner's maintenance claims.
In India bigamy is illegal and it is unclear if either the man or the woman is already married
and having a living spouse, in what sense a live-in relationship can be equal to a marriage.
Same issue came before the Supreme Court in Indra Sharma v. V.K.V. Sharma, court held
that in such circumstances the status of women will be that of concubine and she cannot ask
for maintenance.
INTERNSHIP WORK 5
Q. Difference between Pledge and Bailment?
Ans: - Bailment: - A contract in which the goods are handed over by one party to another
party for a specific reason, which is expressed or implied for a short period. The person who
delivers the goods is termed as bailor whereas the receiver of the goods is termed as Bailee.
The delivery of goods can be done in three ways: Actual Delivery, Symbolic Delivery, and
Constructive Delivery. The Bailment is divided into two categories:-
Gratuitous Bailment – Either for the sole benefit of Bailor or Bailee.
Non-gratuitous Bailment – For the Mutual Benefit of both the parties.
Ex: - Clothes given in laundry for cleaning are an example of bailment.
Pledge: - The pledge is a variety of bailment in which goods are transferred from one party to
another party as security for the payment against debts owed by him. The person who
delivers the goods is known as Pawnor whereas the receiver of goods is known as Pawnee.
EX: - Money taken as debt from the money lender by pledging gold as security against it is
an example of Pledge.
Key difference between Bailment and Pledge:-
The following are the major differences between Bailment and Pledge
1. A Bailment is a contract in which goods are transferred from one party to another
party for a short period for a specific objective. The Pledge is a kind of Bailment in
which goods are pledged as security against payment of debt.
2. A Bailment is defined under section 148 while Pledge is defined under section 172 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
3. In bailment, the consideration may or may not be present, but in the case of a pledge,
the consideration is always present.
4. The objective of bailment is safe custody or repairing of goods delivered. On the other
hand, the sole purpose of delivering the goods is to act as security against the debt.
5. The receiver has no right to sell the goods in case of bailment whereas if Pawnor does
not redeem the goods within the reasonable time, the Pawnee can sell the goods after
giving notice to him.
6. In bailment, the goods are used by the bailee only for the said purpose. Conversely, in
pledge, Pawnee has no right to use the goods.
