SUMMER INTERNSHIP TRAINING REPORT

In lieu of partial fulfillment of 7th semester of the Degree

of B.A. LL.B. for the batch 2020-2025

SUBMITTED BY:

Aadish JAIN

00114703820

4th Year Section-A

MAHARAJA AGARSEN INSTITUTE OF

MANAGEMENT
(GGSIPU, Delhi)
 Panjwani & Associates
Advocates, Solicitors &LegalConsultants

CERTIFICATE OF INTERNSHIP

This is to certify that Mr. Aadish Jain, astudent of 4th year of Maharaja Agrasen
Institute of Management Studies (MAIMS), New Delhi, has successfully
completed the internship with our firm for a period from 1% August 2023 to 1
September 2023 and has researched actively on various aspects and subjects in
law.

During the internship he has researched in detail on various provisions and

landmark judgements pertaining to Criminal Law, Matrimonial Law, Civil
Procedure Code 1908,Constitution of India, Intellectual Property Laws inter alia.

He is hardworking and gives his best to every assignment. We all at Panjwani and
Associates wish him all good luck in his future endeavours.

Panirni&Associates
Advocataa!Consul:ants
s.
Aard:n
Foelhi-T0015
(Gautam Panjwani)
Advocate

Office : C-50, Sharda Puri, Mansarover Garden, New Delhi-110015.

Ph:91-9891212667 Tel /Fax : 011-47079911
E-mail :[email protected], [email protected]
 DECLARATION

I Aadish Jain of 7th semester of BA.LLB(H.) do hereby declare that this report as
compiled by me under summer internship program is based on my own
experiences and observations to the best of my knowledge and understanding in
the duration and the same which is submitted therefore to Maharaja Agarsen
Institute of Management and school of law affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University, New Delhi is a reliable document and is of bona fide
nature.

I also inform that the report has been prepared only for my aceademic requirement
and not for any other purpose.

AADISH JAIN

B.A. LLB.(2020-2025)

7th Semester, 4th year (A)

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank and express my deep gratitude to respected mentor, Adv.
Gauntam Panjwani , under whom I undertook and completed my 8 weeks
internship for research work and studying the course of manner of case laws and
organization, who has been my constant support, source of encouragement,
inspiration, guided and helped me in successfully completing my summer
internship.

I take profound sense of pride to convey my gatefulness towards Guru Gobind

Singh Indraprastha University and my Institute – Ideal institute of management and
technology and school of law.
 OBJECTIVE

The Legal Internship Program is not designated to teach us how to be good

lawyers, it takes more than study at the University to do that.

The objectives are to:

1. Expose us to the law in operation in context where we will come to perceive

aspects of law which cannot be learned from reading or hearing about it.

2. Allow us to perceive ways in which the formal learning we acquire at

university may be applied in practice and therefore to develop an
appreciation of the practical dimension of the legal principle.

3. Enable us to relate the different areas of legal practice to importance of

developing skills of legal research, communication, drafting, practice
management and problem solving.

4. Enable us to observe and reflect upon the values, ethical, standards

and conduct of legal profession in practice and to develop our own
attitude of professional responsibility.
 INDEX
S.NO TOPICS AND CASE LIST PAGE NO.
1 OBJECTIVE 1
2 BAJAJ ALLIANZ V. VIKRAM MEHTA 2
3 STATE V. SANDEEP VERMA 3
4 SHIKHA VERMA V. DCB BANK 4
5 JATIN KUMAR V GNCTD 5
(GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL
TERRITORY OF DELHI)
6 SUSHMA V. VIJAY 6
7 ANIL V. RENUBALA 7

8 ANURAG V. ANU SOOD 8

9 MOHIT V. SHALINI 9
10 SEEMA V. NAVITA 10
11 KULDEEP V. HDFC 11
12 CONCLUSION 12
 CASE – 1
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA BOSE LD. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGUISTRATE , SPECIAL COURT (NI ACT), TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI

Ct. Cases/537970/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:-

BAJAJ FINANCE LTGD …. COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

VIKRAM MEHTA …. ACCUSED

SUBJECT MATTER:-

FACTS:- It is a case u/s 138 of NI Act which deals with the Dishonour of cheque
for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Mr Vikram Mehta who was the
defaulter in this case didn’t pay the monthly installments of his Vehicle for a
period of 3 years and limitation act was applied to this case. So as per the best
interest for both the parties the parties went for mediation settlement and the case
got disposed on Aug 23,2023

OBSERVATION:- In this case I observed that my Senior Advocate Mrs. Reena

Singh who was the learned counsel for the Accused , upon instructions, submits
that the disputes arising between the parties got setllted at mediation centre for the
cheque amount and complainant got the case withdrawn as settled. The Parties
mutually settled the dispute and the mediator directed the defaulter Mr. Vikram
mehta to give a check amounting Rs 21000/- to Bajaj Allianz to get the matter
settled.
 CASE – 2
IN THE COURT OF SMT. Ms. NEHA KHERIA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE , HIGH COURT ,NEW DELHI

Cr. Case/72111/2018

F.1LR No:162/2017

P.S: Hauz Qazi

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE ..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

SANDEEP VERMA ..ACCUSED

SUBJECT MATTER: It is a case u/s 354 Crpc wihich deals with assaults or uses
criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that
he will there by outrage her modesty.

CASE FACTS - In this case, we represented the accused Sandeep Verma. The
incident happened on a Saturday evening when sandeep had an argument with her
neighbour. This was purely a verbal quarrel and nothing else happened. When the
things got heated up her neighbour slapped him and filed a false case of
molestation which is pending in hon’ble high court. On last date of hearing, the
complainant was cross examined by the counsel for the accused. All the
prosecution witness have been examined except the Investigation Officer, it is filed
for cross examination of Investigation Officer on Next date of hearing.
 CASE -3
IN THE COURT OF SH. ALOK SHUKLA ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI

CASE NUMBER: DJ/78/2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHIKHA …..Petitioner

Vs.

DCB BANK …..Respondent

SUBJECT MATTER: It is a case of stay on the loan of loaner with interest. We

represented Shikha Verma who took loan from the bank named DCB bank and her
house was given as a security. However she couldn’t repay the loan and a case was
filed by DCB Bank. The matter was put to mediation centre and the matter was
settled at 95 lakhs.

Observation: The Matter got settled at the Delhi Mediation Centre at an amount of
95 lakhs which at the best interest for both the parties. Now it is listed for
statement of parties before court

Next hearing: 04/10/2023

 CASE -4
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE MR. R.N. SINGH MEMBER J, HON’BLE MR.
SANJEEVA KUMAR MEMBER A, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF :

JATIN KUMAR ….APPLICANT

VERSUS

GNCTD (GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF

DELHI) ….DEFENDANT

SUBJECT MATTER: In this case the applicant Jatin Kumar filed an original
application before CAT( Central Admnistrative Tribunal) as he was suspended
from the department of police due to false allegations that was imposed to him by
his senior officials in the police department. He was falsely charged for not
obeying the orders of his senior offficials and was suspended and sent to jail.

Observation: Original application was allowed and he was reinstated at service

again. He was ordered to reinstate. Moreover my senior counsel Mrs. Reena Singh
will be filing a petition for the salary amount which he didn’t receive on the period
of his suspension which was totally a departmental fault and my client was
innocent and was falsely implicated.

The matter was disposed on 16.08.23.

 CASE -5
IN THE COURT OF SMT. DIVYA YADAV MM. TIS HAZARI COURTS,
NEW DELHI

P.S – BINDA PUR

EX Cr./419/2019

IN THE MATTER OF :

SUSHMA SHARMA …. PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

VIJAY KUMAR SAINI ….DEFENDANT

SUBJECT MATTER- It is an execution filed by the wife of the defendant u/s 125
of CrPC which allows a wife, including a Hindu wife, to claim maintenance from
her husband if he neglects or refuses to maintain her.

CASE FACTS- In this case we are from the Plaintiff’s side. My senior counsel
Mrs. Reena Singh represented sushma for her execution on monthly maintenance
from husband. Sushma was a victim of cruelty, dessertion, domestic violence by
her husband. Her husband used to torture her which lead to divorce.

OBSERVATION- In this case Vijay is not paying my client monthly

maintainance and they have a daughter whose custody is with Sushma. Vijay is
also hiding his actual income from the Hon’ble Court so that he has to pay low
maintainance to her wife.
We had to go through his bank statements and passbook entries in which he has
ommitted some transactions with a correction pen(Fluid) which is an offence u/s
204 of IPC.

Next date of hearing is on 21.09.23.

 CASE – 6
IN THE COURT OF SM. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI FAMILY COURT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI

HMA/588114/2016

U/S- 13 HMA

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANIL KUMAR ……PETITIONER

VERSUS

RENU BALA ….RESPONDENT

SUBJECT MATTER – It is case in which husband has filed for divorve u/s
13(1)(a) of HMA which deals with cruelty, dessertion.

CASE FACTS – In the present case, the petitioner Mr. Anil Kumar was a victim
of Domestic violence, cruelty, dessertion by her wife. She didn’t took care of him
and her family. She used to taunt him because of his middle class status although
he was not from a poor background. He was a governement employee with a
decent salary but she was not happy with him. She used to insult and misbehave
with him and she was in a adultery with another man. After knowing this my client
Mr. Anil Kumar filed for divorce.

OBSERVATION – The Hon’ble court passed a decree on 22.08.23 in favour of

our client i.e Mr. Anil Kumar.
 CASE – 7
IN THE COURT OF SM. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI FAMILY COURT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
CASE NUMBER: HMA/588727/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

ANURAG SOOD …..PETITIONER

VERSUS

ANU SOOD …..RESPONDENT

BRIEF MATTER OF THE CASE: In this case we are for the respondent Mrs.
Anu Sood. The Petitioner was having an extra-marital affair with the lady working
in his office. He used to buy expensive gifts and bring jewellery and gift his Gf. He
didn’t want to stay with his Wife as he doesn’t find her attractive. The Petitoner i.e
Anurag Sood doesn’t want to stay with his wife and wanted a divorce. Another
case of maintainance is also filed by the wife i.e anu sood claiming her
maintainance money from her husband.

OBSERVATION- In the case my counsel represented the respondent Anu Sood. I

observed while studying the case file that anurag is a wealthy person and he
somehow tries to not reveal his real income as hi maintainance amount is around
Rs 17000/- pm which is less according to his assets and business he owes. So we
have filed a maintainance petition for the increment of the maintainance money
which is given by the husband. The Case is at arguments stage.

NEXT DATE OF HEARING – 27.09.23

 CASE - 8
IN THE COURT OF SM. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI FAMILY COURT, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI

CASE NUMBER: HMA/651/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

MOHIT …..PETITIONER

VERSUS

SHALINI …..RESPONDENT

SUBJECT MATTER – It is case in which husband has filed for divorve u/s
13(1)(a) of HMA which deals with cruelty, dessertion.

CASE FACTS – In the present case, the petitioner Mr. Mohit Kumar was a victim
of Domestic violence, cruelty, dessertion by her wife. She didn’t took care of him
and her family. She used to taunt him because of his middle class status although
he was not from a poor background. He was a governement employee with a
decent salary but she was not happy with him. She used to insult and misbehave
with him and she was in a adultery with another man. After knowing this my client
Mr. Anil Kumar filed for divorce.

OBSERVATION: I observed that our client Mohit is a good father and fullfilled
all his duties towards his daughter unlike shalini who left her at her father’s home.
Mohit is an educated man and also a dutiful father and son.
CURRENT STAGE: It is pending for judgement, final arguments is done.

NEXT DATE OF HEARING- 04.10.23

 CASE – 9
IN THE COURT OF SH. OMPAL SHOKEEN, CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI

Ct. Cases/1086/2018

PS:-PASCHIM VIHAR

IN THE MATTER OF:

SEEMA KAPUR …ACCUSED

VERSUS

NAVITA KUMAR …COMPLAINANT

SUBJECT:- It is a case of cheque bounce u/s138 of NI Act which deals with the
Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account

CASE FACTS:- In this case, we are representing the complainant. Seema kapur
who is the accused was living in a flat which is owed by Mrs. Navita Kumar and
she was tenant. The cheque that were given to Complainant as rent got bounced
due to insufficient funds in Accused account. The complainant sent a legal notice
to the accuswed but thenm also the same incident happened. Another cheque was
bounced. Then a casenwas filed by the complainant at Gurgaon district court and
the matter was settled in Lok Adalat. The Accused was asked to pay the rent
amount in addition with interest @12% which leads to the ampunt of Rs.6,86,990/-
When the next due date arrived and the complainany asked for the rent amount she
was told that the total amount which was pending was paid in cash which is not
true. In addition to this she wrongfully alleged the complainant’s husband that he
used to come and misbehave with the accused husband for the rent who is not well.
well.

OBSERVATION: I observed that the accused is trying to make stories for not
paying up the rent which was imposed on her because such a big amount cannot be
given in cash and if she has given then she must have done a bank transaction or
while giving such a big amount she must have given the money in front of
someone as keeping him an eye witness.

NEXT DATE OF HEARING- The matter is listed for defence evidence on

09.10.23
 CASE – 10
IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE SH. SUMIT ANAND MM, PATIALA
HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF

KULDEEP SINGH …..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

HDFC BANK …..ACCUSED

SUBJECT MATTER : This case is filed u/s 464 of IPC which is based on
Forgery.

FACTS: Accused was charged under section 464 of indian penal code. We are
from the complainant’s side. In this case an official of HDFC bank took some
signatures on an official document from the complainant. After checking he found
that he forgot to took signatures at some places so instead of calling the
complainant the accused bank official himself did the signatures on the
complainant’s behalf without taking prior permission from the complainant.

OBSERVATION:- Summon has been issued against the bank official. It was
found that the accused is not residing in India anymore. The complainant wanted a
written apology from the bank. These type of behaviour is not accepted from such
a highly reputed bank.

NEXT DATE OF HEARING:- 12.03.24

 CONCLUSION

Pursuing this summer internship I gained the knowledge in some important fields
of law. Firstly, I have done many research work and case analysis on from the
online sources. Secondly without exposure to the real world, one cannot
understand the analytical and positive application of law and jurisprudence and
the actual function and structure of law. Such summer trainings help a law
student to reborn and replenish himself and to explore his bounds of training.
Expertise in law comes thorough reading which was the pre-requisite to our
training. When it comes to observance of trials in the courts, it was one of the
most essential parts of learning for an intern. Observance of trials and court
proceedings help in understanding the very root of the law in India.
Proceedings are the whole mechanism in to whose analysis is always advisable.

With a vote of thanks and gratefulness for reading this report thoroughly and for
giving me this wonderful opportunity to grow up my vision in this field of law, I
conclude this report with a great lot in my mind.
With warm regards,

Yours faithfully,

Aadish Jain