Intern Diary law

1 | INTERNSHIP DIARY



CONTENTS

1. Day wise Work...........................................................................................5 2. Assignments.............................................................................................11 3. Case Briefs................................................................................................12


DAY WISE WORK

1. Friday 9 December, 2016

On the first day I went to Chamber of High Court Advocate Mr Prem Dayal Bohra. I was introduced to the work of lawyers, interns and functioning of High Court and Library for lawyers at the High Court by Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra and also how the E Library works and what are the works which are carried by Clerks, Typist, Steno and Reader at the Court room. He also taught how to appear before High court for a case and what are the essentials for any case to be presented and argued before High Court.

2. Saturday 10 December, 2016

Second Saturday High Court Holiday.

3. Sunday 11 December, 2016

High Court Holiday.

4. Monday 12 December, 2016

On this day I went for hearing of cases

Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 1757/2006 – SRC vs. Sohanlal in Court no. 8 of Justice Vijay Vishnoi who deals in Criminal Petetions, etc.

5. Tuesday 13 December, 2016

On this day I went to Advocate General’s Chamber and for hearing of following case

Criminal Appeal No. 9020/2014 – Dr. Kundan Lal Porwal vs. State of Rajasthan in Court No. 4.


6. Wednesday 14 December, 2016

On this day I visited to watch proceedings in Court No. 3 which is the only Dual Judge Bench of Rajasthan High Court consisting of Honourable Justices –

Gopal Krishna Vyas Kailash Chandra Vyas 7. Thursday 15 December, 2016

On this day went to Economic Offences Court, which is formed under Negotiable Instruments Court Act of 1881. In this court cases related to Check bounce, etc. are discussed and in this court on this day I went for a hearing of a case Ovan Nidhi vs Chandravir Singh, But accused was absent so warrant was issued against that person. On this day I also visited to watch proceedings in Additional District Judge’s Court for the case – Jayanti Lal vs. Babulal.


On this day I visited to watch proceedings in Court No. 15 of Honourable Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma for the case of – 

Criminal Appeal 448/15 – Mahendra Ranna vs. State of Rajasthan



Criminal Appeal 9898/16 – Sara Ram vs. Smt. Soni


On this second weekend of my Internship I discussed and analysed a case (which was

on a recent Rajasthan H igh Court Judgement) , given in this Diary under the H eading Case Briefs.



High Court Holiday.


As there was no hearing of any case on this day, So on this day 2 works are assigned by Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra. (Discussed in this diary under H eading Assignments ) ‘

’



Criminal Misc. Appeal No. -/16 – Smt. Dayawanti vs.The Comm. And others. in Court no. 8 of Justice Vijay Vishnoi who deals in Criminal Petitions, etc



S.B.Criminal Misc(pet.) No. 3630 / 2016 – Vagta Ram vs. State and Others in the Court of Honourable Justice Mr. P. K. Lohra.


On this day I went for District Court visit.

14. Thursday 22 December, 2016

On this day I went for a hearing of a case Ovan Nidhi vs Chandravir Singhi in Court No. 7 of Negotiable Instruments related offences.


On this day I discussed two cases of Sessions court at Jodhpur with Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra regarding non appearance of parties and non availability of defences – 



Bara Ram vs. Alpesh Marble Vikram Singh vs. Bhopal Singh



Last working Day and starting of Winter Break Holiday of Rajasthan High Court. As last working day of the year 2016, all the lawyers of High Court of Judicature at Jodhpur, Rajasthan boycott the work and observe it as non working day in protest of a 30 year old Judgement of shifting of half of Courts of High Court to New Bench at Jaipur, Rajasthan.


Winter Break Holiday of Rajasthan High Court.




Winter Break Holiday of Rajasthan High Court, but as District Court is working so went for 1 hearing of a case Rajendra vs Mahavir in Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s (CMM) Court.



21. Thursday 29 December, 2016







24. Sunday 1 January, 2017


25. Monday 2 January, 2017

On this day I visited Court No.1 of Rajasthan High Court in which there was hearing going on by Honourable Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court.There are total 30 courts at Rajasthan High Court in which 15 are at Jodhpur (Principal Bench) and 15 are at Jaipur (Sub Bench). So for first 15 days Honourable Chief Justice sits at Principal Bench.

26. Tuesday 3 January, 2017

On this day I went to Court No. 8 of Justice Vijay Vishnoi for a Criminal Matter for Quashing an FIR.

27. Wednesday 4 January, 2017


Criminal Appeal No. 652/2014 - Arjunlal vs. State and Others in Court No. 7.



Criminal Appeal No. 216/2014 – Smt.Umrao Bai and Shanti Devi vs. Bhanwarlal and Others in Court no. 9.

28. Thursday 5 January, 2017

On this day I went for hearing of case and in this Final Hearing of this case Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra Won the case –




S.B.Criminal Misc(pet.) No. 3630 / 2016 – Vagta Ram vs. State and Others in the Court No. 8 of Honourable Justice Mr.Vijay Vishnoi.

29. Friday 6 January, 2017


Civil Writ No. 1330/2016 – Ashok Singh vs. State and Others in Court No. 3.



CB Civil Writ Petition No. 6151/2014 Rajesh Sarpate vs State of Rajasthan through the Secretary.

30. Saturday 7 January, 2017

On this last weekend of my Internship I on my own discussed and analysed a case

(which was a S.B. Criminal Misc. Writ etition) , given in this Diary under the H eading Case Briefs. 31. Sunday 8 January, 2017

High Court Holiday.

32. Monday 9 January, 2017

This was my Last Day of Internship in Rajasthan High Court so there was no work as such but on this day I visited all the 15 courts from morning to understand the working of Honourable High Court and Also helped Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra in various small tasks like purchase of Court Stamps, Affidavits, Photocopying of Judgements, etc.


ASSIGNMENTS Assignment 1 (on 19th December 2016) The First Assignment on this day was to apply for copying of a case. Firstly I tried to learnt what is this concept, so further on this issue I researched and found out that parties to any proceeding may, on application with the prescribed courtfee made to the Court having the custody of the record, obtain certified copies of any judgment, order, deposition, memorandum of evidence, or any other documents filed in the said proceeding. The application may be made by the party himself or by his recognized agent or by his Pleader or Advocate and may also be sent by post. The application shall state whether the copy applied for is required for private use or otherwise. So on this day I applied for copying in the case of – CB Civil Writ Petition No. 6151/2014 Rajesh Sarpate S/o Tulsi Ram vs State of

Rajasthan through the Secretary, D ept. Of Local B odies, Rajasthan, decided on 19th December, 2016.

Assignment 2(on 19th December 2016) The Second Assignment on this day was to Posting of a Caveat by India Post. By this assignment I learned what a Caveat is and what are its reasons and where it is mentioned in any statute. I found out through a research that a Caveat is a notice given by a person, informing the Court that another person may file a suit or application against him and that the Court must give the Caveator (person filing the Caveat) a fair hearing before deciding any matter brought before it in the relevant case. I further researched and As per Order XI A, Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: (1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceedings instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof. Also a caveat is filed for various reasons and this caveat was filed to clarify the

Caveator’s

address in District Court Order in case of – SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9020/2014 Dr. K undan Lal Porwal vs. State of R ajasthan 11 | INTERNSHIP DIARY

CASE BRIEFS Case Brief (of 17 th December 2016) Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Biomass Energy Division) Vs. State of Rajasthan

Decided By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi on 7th September, 2016

Important Law Point in the Case: 

Policy for Promoting Generation of Electricity from Biomass-2010.

Ratio of the Case: 

Rule of interpretation says that a statute must be read as a whole and the provisions of a statute should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same statute so as to make consistent enactment of the whole statute. If the court finds that there is some inconsistency between the two provisions of the same statute, then it is the duty of the court to remove the said inconsistency between the two provisions of the same statute, so both the provisions can be made workable.



If there is any doubt about the words of a statute, then the interpretation which is harmonious with the subject of the enactment and the object, with which the statute makers enacted the law, should be adopted.

While interpreting the Policy for Promoting Generation of Electricity from Biomass-2010, Hon'ble Court has held that rule of interpretation says that a statute must be read as a whole and the provisions of a statute should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same statute so as to make consistent enactment of the whole statute. If the court finds that there is some inconsistency between the two provisions of the same statute, then it is the duty of the court to remove the said inconsistency between the two provisions of the same statute, so both the provisions can be made workable. Another rule of interpretation is that in case of a doubt, it is always safe to take aid of the object and purpose of the statute or the spirit behind it. If there is any doubt about the


words of a statute, then the interpretation which is harmonious with the subject of the enactment and the object, with which the statute makers enacted the law, should be adopted.

Case Brief (of 7th January 2017) Anisha Bano (Smt.) Vs. Hisar Mohammad Decided by Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr. Navin Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhandari on 08.11.2016

Important Law Point in the Case: 

Section 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act.



Section 5 of Limitation Act.

Ratio in the Case:



There is a presumption that a registered letter has reached its destination by delivery to the addressee under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. But the presumption is not absolute. If it is rebutted, evidence has to be led in proof of delivery. Such evidence inter-alia can be of the Postman who had gone to deliver it. Service can be said to be complete when the registered notice has either been delivered or it is returned with endorsement of the Postman that it was refused acceptance. In the latter event, evidence would again have to be led of the concerned, including the Postman. A mere endorsement on the envelope that information had been given to the Appellant without even examining the Postman in question cannot lead to an absolute presumption of delivery as all possibilities remain open with regard to the time and manner in which the endorsement may have actually been made.



The Court further held that the law of limitation has to be interpreted so as to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the ends of justice by relying on hypertechnicalities.

While considering the Section 114(E) of Indian Evidence Act & Section 5 of Limitation Act held that there is a presumption that a registered letter has reached its destination by delivery


to the addressee under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. But the presumption is not absolute. If it is rebutted, evidence has to be led in proof of delivery. Such evidence inter-alia can be of the Postman who had gone to deliver it. Service can be said to be complete when the registered notice has either been delivered or it is returned with endorsement of the Postman that it was refused acceptance. In the latter event, evidence would again have to be led of the concerned, including the Postman. A mere endorsement on the envelope that information had been given to the Appellant without even examining the Postman in question cannot lead to an absolute presumption of delivery as all possibilities remain open with regard to the time and manner in which the endorsement may have actually been made. The Court further held that the law of limitation has to be interpreted so as to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the ends of justice by relying on hyper technicalities. The present was a matter relating to two human beings arising out of a matrimonial relationship. It called for a level of sensitivity and humane approach on part of the Family Judge rather than a mechanical approach of what may be otherwise a routine litigation with regard to property or similar matters.


Intern Diary law

Recommend Documents