WEEKLY INTERNSHIP REPORT

SEVENTH WEEK REPORT FROM 21/03/2016 TO 26/03/2016

This week I was allotted with the work to find out the relevant recent judgments in
which the case of Sohan Lal Gupta v Asha Devi Gupta (2003) 7 SCC 492 was referred by
various High Courts, so that the pleading for one of the cases can be supported
with this particular judgement. About the case
What constitutes a reasonable notice by an arbitrator is the question involved in
these appeals which arise out of a judgment and decree dated 1.3.1979 passed by a
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court affirming an order passed by a learned
Single Judge setting aside an arbitration award.
The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Two groups of persons - one Guptas
and another Sharmas - held several properties including three firms, six limited
companies, one trust and other movable and immovable assets. Both the groups
had 50% shares each. The family members of the Guptas and Sharmas Groups
were
interested in many or in some of the businesses and the firms.

TITLE

CASE No.

M/S
Radharamana
Capital Services
... vs M/S Jaypee
Capital Services
Ltd
Kirloskar
Brothers Limited
... vs Champ
Infrastructure
Private
Tara Properties
Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
Union of India &
anr
Saraswathi
Chemicals vs
Balmer Lawrie &
Company Ltd

O.M.P. 673/2009

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/43431105/

Court and
Date of
Judgement
Delhi High
Court
30.11.2012

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/941158/

Madras High
Court
20.06.2006

A.P. 253 of 2007

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/974226/

Calcutta High
Court
20.05.2011

O.S.A.NO.316 OF 2006
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/993486/

Madras High
Court
22.03.2011

RATIO

Para 18:
Case referredSohan Lal
Gupta v Asha
Devi Gupta
Para 9 & 10:
Case referredSohan Lal
Gupta v Asha
Devi Gupta
Para 25:
Case referredSohan Lal
Gupta v Asha
Devi Gupta
Para 12:
Case referredSohan Lal
Gupta v Asha
Devi Gupta

1. 23rd May 2016

In the court of Mrs. Shalini Saroha MM Saket District Court, New Delhi.
Monika v Nishkant, case filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. 25th May 2016In the court of Poonam Bamba Spcl Judge under PC act, Patiala House
Court, New Delhi. CBI v Praful Yadav.

WEEKLY INTERNSHIP REPORT

EIGHTH WEEK REPORT FROM 28/03/2016 TO 2/04/2016
This week I was assigned the research work on cases related to Product liability & project to
prepare a document on the procedure to establish a Medical Educational Institute under
Companies Law Act 2013 in India. And also the By-Laws and documents required for
incorporation of Medical Educational Institute under Societies Registration Act, 1860.
Further I was also required to prepare the details of the Memorandum and Articles of
Association of Educational Society. A short summary of the working and procedure of
registration, documents required was also demanded by the client.
The law firm has finally submitted the following document to the respective client.

1. A.S. Mittal & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 12 May, 1989- The explanation of the doctors
appears to be that the infection occurred despite all precaution. Though it is not said so in so
many words, the drift of the explanation is that the saline, used to irrigate the eyes during
surgery to maintain turgidity of the
operational surface, which was purchased from a reputed manufacturer
might be the source of the contamination. If that be so, the question of the liability of the
manufacturer for what is called "product- liability" and the further question whether in such
cases of mass-use, a pre-test for safety and purity of the article was necessary and whether
failure to do so would be action- able. These questions are necessarily to be answered on
evidence. In these proceedings neither do we have full evidence nor does the scope of the
proceedings permit such findings to be recorded conclusively.
By-Laws and documents required for incorporation of Medical
Educational Institute under Company Law 2013
Section 3- Formation of a company
Section 4- MOA
Section 5- AOA
Section 7- Incorporation
Section 9- Effect of registration
Section 10- Effect of MOA and AOA

Section 11- Commencement of business

Section 12- Registration of a company
Section 149- Board of Directors
Section 366- Companies capable of being registered Section 396- Registration Office
Section 398- Filing of Applications, documents in electronic form Section 403- Fee for filing
SHEDULE I- Table D MoA Table J AoA
By-Laws and documents required for incorporation of Medical Educational Institute under
Societies Registration Act, 1860 By-Laws7 or more persons associated for the purpose of promotion of education
Subscribing their names to a MOA and filing it with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies.
MOA should Contain- Name and object of the society. Names, address, occupation of
governors, council, directors, committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of
the society, the management of its affairs is entrusted.
A copy of Rules and Regulations of the Society, certified to be a correct copy by not less than
3 members of the governing body.
A copy of the report of the proceedings of the general meeting at which the registration was
resolved on.
For every registration the Registrar shall be paid fees of 50 rupees, or such smaller fees as
the state government may, from time to time direct; and all fees so paid shall be accounted for
to the state government.
Society may sue or may be sued in the name of president, chairman, or principal secretary,
or trustees, as determined by the rules and regulation of the Society.
In case the person against whom a suit has been brought, dies or ceases to fill the character
in the name whereof he shall have sued or been sued, the same suit of proceedings shall
continue in the name of or against the successor of such person.
A judgment shall not be put in force against the property, movable or immovable, or against
the body of such person or officer named on behalf of the society, but against the property of
the society.
A member of a society shall be a person who, has been admitted according to the rules and
regulations thereof, has paid a subscription, has signed the roll or list of members, and shall
not have resigned in accordance with the rules and regulations.

Governing body of the society shall be the governors, council, directors, committees,
trustees or other body to whom by the rules and regulations of the society the management of
the society the management of its affairs in entrusted.
An ascent of the society to be registered under this act must be given by three-fifth of the
members present.

WEEKLY INTERNSHIP REPORT

NINTH WEEK REPORT FROM 4/04/2016 TO 8/04/2016
Research work on Anticipatory Bail.
RULE ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN ABDUL REHMAN V. K.M. ANEES-UL-HAQ
(2011) 10 SCC 696.
Appellant-Abdul Rehman lodged a complaint with the Crime against Women (CAW) Cell,
Nanakpura, Moti Bagh, New Delhi, accusing the Respondent-K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq and four
others of commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant's case is that the
accusations made by the appellant in the report lodged with the Women Cell were totally
false and fabricated. In particular, allegations regarding demand of dowry as a condition
precedent for performance of Nikah between the complainant's nephew and Ms Aliyaappellant No.3 in this appeal were also false and unfounded. It was on that premise that the
respondent filed a complaint alleging that the appellants had instituted criminal proceedings
against him without any basis and falsely charged him with commission of offences knowing
that there was no just or lawful ground for such proceedings or

charge and thereby

committed offences punishable under Sections 211 and 500 read with Sections 109, 114 and
34 IPC.
The Metropolitan Magistrate entertained the complaint, recorded statements of three
witnesses produced by the respondent and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient
material to show commission of offences punishable under Sections 211 and 500 IPC. While
doing so, the Magistrate placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in M.L. Sethi v. R.P.
Kapur [AIR 1967 SC 528] to hold that a complaint for commission of an offence punishable
under Section 211 IPC is maintainable even at the stage of investigation into a First
Information Report.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the appellant preferred a
Criminal Revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, who dismissed the same
as barred by limitation. The appellant then preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

before the High Court of Delhi for quashing complaint No.180/1 of 2002 pending before the
MM and all proceedings consequent thereto. The High Court has, as mentioned above,
dismissed the said petition holding that since no judicial proceedings were pending in any
Court at the time when the complaint under Sections 211 and 500 IPC was filed by the
respondent-complainant, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not attracted nor was
there any illegality in the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate summoning the
appellants to face trial.
The appellants who happen to be the accused persons in the complaint aforementioned have
assailed the said finding in the present appeal by special leave. The appellants contend that
the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. was attracted to the complaint filed by the
respondent inasmuch as the offence allegedly committed by them was "in relation to the
proceedings" in the court which the Respondent- complainant had approached, for the grant
of bail and in which the court concerned had granted the bail prayed for by him. What is the
true purport of the expression "in relation to any proceedings in any Court" appearing in
Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and in particular whether the
grant of bail to the respondent in connection with the FIR registered against him would
attract the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C is all that falls for determination
After applying the principles laid down under Kamlapati Trivedi v. State of West Bengal
1980 (2) SCC 91& State of Maharashtra v. SK. Bannu and Shankar (1980) 4 SCC 286
Supreme Court observed that there is no gainsaying that the bail proceedings conducted by
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi, in connection with the case
which the appellants had lodged with CAW Cell were judicial proceedings and the offence
punishable under Section 211 IPC alleged to have been committed by the appellants related
to the said proceedings. Such being the case the bar contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
was clearly attracted to the complaint filed by the respondent. The Metropolitan Magistrate
and the High Court had both failed to notice the decision of this Court in Kamlapati Trivedi's
and SK. Bannu's cases (supra) and thereby fallen in error in holding that the complaint filed
by the respondent was maintainable. The High Court appears to have also failed to appreciate
that the real question that fell for consideration before it was whether the bail proceedings
were tantamount to judicial proceedings. That question was squarely answered in Kamalapati
Trivedi's case (supra). Once it is held that bail proceedings amounted to judicial proceedings
the same being anterior in point of time to the taking of cognizance by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, there is no escape from the conclusion that any offence punishable under Section

211 IPC could be taken cognizance of only at the instance of the Court in relation to whose
proceedings the same was committed or who finally dealt with that case.