TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

INTERNSHIP DIARY

Student Name : ARUN PRAKASH M

Reg. No : BA0160010
Year of study : 2016-2021
Internship type : Trial Court Internship
Internship under : T. SURENDRAN
Advocate, Kanniyakumari District Court, at Nagercoil.
Mobile: 9442239817
E-mail: [email protected]
Contact Person : same as above
Period of Internship : 10.12.2018 to 10.01.2019

(For Evaluation Purpose at the University)

Internship Approved/Internship NOT Approved

Internal supervisor’s Signature Date:

External supervisor certificate submitted

Internship diary submitted

1
 DECLARATION FORM

This internship diary is a presentation of my original research work. The work was done

under the guidance of Adv. T. SURENDRAN, at the Nagercoil District Court

between 10.12.2018 to 10.01.2019.

Date: 30.01.2019 M ARUN PRAKASH

2
3
DAY 1:

Started the internship under the esteemed guidance of Mr. T. Surendran of the Kanyakumari
District Court. Was introduced to the work and was told the concepts about Civil Law and
was cleared the basic definitions and concepts, how the system works etc.

Visited the Kanyakumari District Court and observed the Court Proceedings and other
judicial activities. Could observe only two or three cases as the day was called off by most
lawyers, in the wake of protest staged by the Local Bar Association Advocates of their
internal issues.

THINGS LEARNED:

1. Basic short forms like Original Suit (OS), Equitable Claims (EC), etc. used in the
Court.
2. Most recurrent type of cases in the Court such as Tortious Case, Landlord/Tenant
Issues, MCOP Cases, etc.

DAY 1 ENDS

WEEK 1:

In the first week of June as well as our internships, we were told by our Advocate to study
thoroughly about the Court, Working of the Court, Hierarchy and other such information
about the Premises as understanding the place of profession should be the primary work to
better comprehend. work efficiently and unfalteringly. We, enthusiastically strolled along the
parapets of the entire premises, filled with ecstasy and honor to be interned in an Actual
Court for the first time in our lives. The understanding of the Court Procedures made us
realize that any heights can be easily achieved if one is strong at basics.

THINGS LEARNED:
This is an extensive research done on the Wings, Working of the Kanyakumari District court.

4
The purpose of the visit was to understand the working of a Court, the nature of duties of the
Judicial Officers. The visit was to help us understand the role of court in dispensing Justice in
any case, the role of Prosecutors in a case, the way cases proceed in a court, the way judges,
Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers handle the case, the relationship of the Prosecutors and the
Police. This gave us an opportunity to understand the actual need of co- ordination in the four
pillars of the Criminal Justice System.

DISTRICT COURT - The District Courts of India are presided over by a judge. The
administer justice in India at a district level. These courts are under administrative and
judicial control of the high court of the state to which the district concerned belongs.

PROSECUTOR - The prosecutor is the chief legal representative of the prosecution in

system. He is a lawyer who represents the state and conduct countries with either the
common law adversarial system, or the civil law inquisitorial criminal cases against
defendants. The role of the Prosecutor begins once the police filed the charge-sheet in the
court. The Prosecutor must conduct the prosecution on behalf of the Police investigation. It is
his/her duty to present all the facts, witnesses and evidence before the court.

PROSECUTION - The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a
criminal trial against an individual accused of breaking the law.

DEFENSE LAWYER - A defense lawyer is an attorney that represents an accused party in

legal matters, including in a court of law. The accused party is known as the defendant, hence
the name, defense lawyer. Represent the accused after arrest to give advice. He investigates
details of the offense on behalf of the accused. He discusses the case with the prosecutor and
tests the strength of the state’s case. He represents the accused at bail hearings and presents
an appeal.

THE BUILDING OF THE COURTS COMPLEX HAD COURTS LIKE:

1. CIVIL JUDGE AND RENT CONTROLLER

2. DISTRICT JUDEGE/ ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
4. FAMILY COURTS
5. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL
6. ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES AND OTHER
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES.

5
FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT:

1. The Court room is a hall consisting of a raised pavilion which has a podium for the
Honorable Judge with his Reader and Steno sitting on either side on the same podium.
2. On a pavilion comparatively lower to that of the Judge there is a witness and an
accused box but as informed is not being used.
3. In between the two boxes the typist sits who types all the statements made by the
witnesses.
4. The prosecutor and the defense counsel stands on the bench near the typist. Between
the two counsels stands the witness and the accused stands beside the accused box.
5. There is a Naib court helping the prosecutor standing just beside him.
6. The public attending the trial have seats provided behind the bench where the two
counsels stand.
7. There are cupboards in the court room to keep all the case files being tried in the
court. Even the case properties and other registers maintained in the court by the
different judicial officers.

STAFF READER TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE: He maintains all the case files of the
cases being heard in the court and prompts the judge with the various cases and other
documents.

STENO OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE: Stenographer was sitting on a slightly raised

platform under the judge. He maintains the verbatim written record of what was being said
during the trail. The main reason why a written account is kept of the proceedings is to assist
the parties if they wish to appeal the judge's decision at a later stage. After the trial has ended,
the stenographer will transcribe everything that has been recorded into "transcripts", which
can be made available to all the parties in the case and the judge.

TYPIST: Types each and everything going on in the court room.

NAIBCOURT: He maintains the attendance register for the witnesses and the accused and
assists the reader with the maintenance of case file. He also calls the witness or accused
inside the court room when asked by the judge.

WEEK 1 ENDS

6
WEEK 2:

After a tiring first week of analyzing the Court Procedures and Happenings, it was time to get
some real work by way of Case Laws and do the paper work that puts our intelligence and
understanding of Judgements, to test. We were given 2 Case Laws to analyse and make a
Case Summary. We were sure there was not even a slightest of drop in our enthusiasm to
work more and learn new.

THINGS LEARNED:
HARDEVINDER SINGH V. PARAMJIT SINGH & OTHERS:

FACTS: Suit for possession of land to the extent of the share filed in trial court based on land
being ancestral, joint Hindu possession, the said WILL is null & void. Trial court gives
finding that the said WILL is devoid of any merit & order that the land is ancestral property.
On an appeal by beneficiaries of WILL, the learned appellate judge holds that the
predecessor-in-interest of the parties to the suit, was not ancestral, but self-acquired and,
hence, he was competent to alienate the same in any manner as he liked; that WILL be
validly executed and that the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge on that score was
unsustainable. On the account of the settlement b/w appellant & the plaintiff, the trial order
was set aside. But Defendant no.5 filed an appeal before the High Court under Sec-100C.P.C.
which held that the appeal is not maintainable.

FACTS IN ISSUE:

1. Whether defendant No. 5 cannot be regarded as an aggrieved party to assail the impugned
decree invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code?

2. Whether appeal could lie against a mere finding for the simple reason that the Code does
not provide for such an appeal?

3. Whether regular second appeal could be filed by the defendant No. 5 where the suit has
been dismissed by virtue of the dislodging of the decree of the first appellate court?

4. Whether the finding would operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceeding?

PRINCIPAL INVOLVED:

Three situations have been adverted in Order 41 Rule 22. Category No. 1 deals with the
impugned decree which is partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the
7
respondent. Dealing with such a situation, the Bench observed that in such a case, it is
necessary for the respondent to file an appeal or take cross-objection against that part of the
decree which is against him if he seeks to get rid of the same though he is entitled to support
that part of the decree which is in his favour without taking any cross-objection. In respect of
two other categories which deal with a decree entirely in favour of the respondent though an
issue had been decided against him or a decree entirely in favour of the respondent where all
the issues had been answered in his favour but there is a finding in the judgment which goes
against him, in the pre-amendment stage, he could not take any cross-objection as he was not
a person aggrieved by the decree. But post-amendment, read in the light of explanation to
sub-rule (1), though it is still not necessary for the respondent to take any cross-objection
laying challenge to any finding averse to him as the decree is entirely in his favour, yet he
may support the decree without cross-objection. It gives him the right to take a cross-
objection to a finding recorded against him either while answering an issue or while dealing
with an issue. It is apt to note that after the amendment to the Code, if the appeal stands
withdrawn or dismissed for default, the cross objection taken to a finding by the respondent
would still be adjudicated upon on merits which remedy was not available to the respondent
under the un-amended Code.

HELD: Though the High Court has referred to the said pronouncement, yet it has not applied
the ratio correctly to the facts. In the present case, as we find, the plaintiff claiming to be a
co-sharer filed the suit and challenged the will. The defendant No. 5, the brother of the
plaintiff, supported his case. In an appeal at the instance of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the
judgment and decree was overturned. The plaintiff entered into a settlement with the
contesting defendants who had preferred the appeal. Such a decree, we are disposed to think,
prejudicially affects the defendant No. 5 and, therefore, he could have preferred an appeal.
The same having been unsettled, the benefit accrued in his favour became extinct.

M/S. GIAN CHAND & BROTHERS AND ANOTHER V. RATTAN SINGH:

FACTS: Civil action for recovery of a total sum of ₹10,45,620/- along with pendent lite and
future interest at @18% per annum. Plaintiff No. 1 is a registered partnership firm carrying
the business of commission agent for sale and purchase of food grains which advances money
to the agriculturists and charge commission on the sale price of the agricultural produce sodas
determined by the market committee. The respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as
“the defendant”) had been maintaining regular and long standing current account with the

8
plaintiffs. A sum of Rs.5,80,000/- stood in the name of the defendant towards outstanding
balance and he had acknowledged the same under his signature in the corresponding account
entry in the account books of the plaintiffs.

FACT IN ISSUE:

1. Whether the plaintiffs could be said to have established its case, particularly when the
defendant had denied the factum of borrowing any sum and the signatures on the cash
book and no evidence including document/finger print expert was led by the plaintiffs
to establish the signatures of the defendant in the account books;
2. Whether it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to prove the alleged signatures of
the defendant in the cash book when they had been disputed; and
3. Whether the admission of the defendant could be assumed in the absence of clear and
unambiguous admission of the party to the litigation

HELD: It is manifest that the signatures are proven by the witnesses and they have been
marked as exhibits without any objection. They have examined witnesses, proven entries in
the books of accounts and also proven the acknowledgements duly signed by the defendant.
The defendant, on the contrary, except making a bald denial of the averments, had not stated
anything else. That apart, nothing was put to the witnesses in the cross-examination when the
documents were exhibited. He only came with a spacious plea in his evidence which was not
pleaded. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court has fallen into error in
holding that it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiffs to examine the handwriting expert
to prove the signatures. The finding that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge the burden is
absolutely misconceived in the facts of the case.

WEEK 2 ENDS

WEEK 3:

After yet another productive week, this week also continued to absorbing the Case
Proceedings and Court Moving. Further, this week also had us with 2 Case Laws that we
needed to analyse and make a Case Study upon. It was the fuel to our burning desires to study
a lot to interpret cases and make a learning out of it.

9
THINGS LEARNED:
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RAJASTHAN V. SANJEEV SACHDEVA AND
OTHERS:

FACT IN ISSUE: Cases concerned with the interpretation of Section 173-A of the Rajasthan
Municipalities Act 1959, as amended by the Rajasthan Municipalities Amendment Act 1999
(Act No.19 of 1999), which deals with the power of the State Government to allow change in
use of land on payment of conversion charges.

DIVISION BENCH ORDER: Municipal Corporation is not empowered to demand any

amount for change of use of the land

HELD: Amended Section 173-A not only restricts the change of use of land, as the same has
been allotted by the municipality or the State Government, but also put restrictions if the land
has been allotted by any other local authority. Section 173-A (2) covers the cases which are
not even covered by Section 173-A (1) and brings in its fold even the change of use of land
which is not in consonance with the Master Plan. Further Section 173-A (1) (2) and (3) also
contemplates a situation wherein the State Government is entitled to levy conversion charges
if the change in use from one purpose to other purpose. We may, in this respect, also indicate
that, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 297 read with Section 173-A of the 1959
Act, 2000 Rules were promulgated. We are of the view that the demand is legal and valid and
in accordance with the provisions of Section 173-A, as inserted by Amendment Act 19 of
1999 read with 2000 Rules. We are also of the view that the Rajasthan High Court has
committed an error in applying the Judgment of this Court in Pareshar Soni’s case which was
dealing with the un-amended provision of Section 173-A.

ARUN BHANDARI V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS:

FACTS: Appellant is an NRI living in Germany while looking for property, came in contact
of respondent no.2 and her husband, who claim to be the owner of the property, agreement
was executed, husband and wife jointly received a sum of Rs.1,05,00,000/- from the appellant
towards part payment of the sale consideration, on inquiry appellant came to know that the
original allotted has executed a POA in the favour of respondent no 3. On instituting FIR, I
submit a closure report saying that it is a civil case & no criminal offence has been made out.
Appellant has then filed a protest petition before a Magistrate, which took cognizance of case,

10
however on representation before S.P. of that area, which transferred the case to anther SI., it
came to know that both the S.I. has colluded and file a closure report, but after seeing the
case diary it seems that offence has been made out. he made an entry to file the charge-sheet
against the respondents under Sections 420, 406, 567, 468 and 479 of the IPC. At this stage,
the accused persons again colluded with the previous Investigating Officer and the Station
House Officer and got the investigation transferred to the previous Investigating Officer.
However, Magistrate took the cognizance of case after filing the protest petition, case diary &
other documents, under Sec 406, 420 IPC. Session judge: Respondent alleges that it is a
matter of breach of contract & not a case of fraud or cheating, however session judge found
that allegations prima facie constituted criminal offence and it could not be said that it was a
pure & simple dispute of a civil nature. High Court: High Court under exercising the
jurisdiction under Art. 226/227 quashed the order passed by the learned CJM taking
cognizance of offence under sec-406,420 IPC against respondent in the exercise of power
under Sec-190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., saying that there is no privity of contract between the
appellant and respondent no.3 hence offence not made out against the said respondent.

HELD: The entire conduct of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would show that a prima facie
cases made out and allegations are there on record in this regard that they had the intention to
cheat from the stage of negotiation. In view of our aforesaid analysis we allow the appeal, set
aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the Magistrate to proceed in accordance
with law.

VISHWANATH S/O SITARAM AGRAWAL V. SAU. SARLA VISHWANATH

AGRAWAL:

FACTS: Husband files a petition under sec-13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for
divorce, while respondent wife with whim and irrationality reigned in her day-to-day
behavior and frequent quarrels became a daily affair, on certain occasions she used to hide
the keys of the motorcycle and close the gate so that the appellant could not go to the office
of the factory to look after the business

FACTS IN ISSUE:

a) Before learned single judge:

1. whether the appellant had been able to prove the alleged cruelty;

11
 2. whether he was entitled to take disadvantage of his own wrong The learned trial
Judge dismissed the application with costs and also dismissed the application of the
respondent-wife for grant of permanent alimony.

b) On appeal, appellate court entailed dismissal of the appeal.

c) On second appeal before high court, hold that there were concurrent findings of fact and no
substantial question of law was involved. However, the learned single Judge observed that
the sons of the parties had grown up and have been married; that the parties had no intention
to patch up the matrimonial discord; and that the marriage had been irretrievably broken but
that could not be considered by the High Court but only by the Apex Court under Article 142
of the Constitution.

HELD: The cruel behavior of the wife has frozen the emotions and snuffed out the bright
candle of feeling of the husband because he has been treated as an un-person. Thus, analysed,
it is abundantly clear that with this mental pain, agony and suffering, the husband cannot be
asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her. Therefore, he is
entitled to a decree for divorce.

WEEK 3 ENDS

WEEK 4:
After 3 weeks of observing the Court Sittings and analyzing cases of different aspects of
Family, Civil and Property, the Fourth Week was waiting to welcome us with new issues,
new people, new Cases and whole new experience. This week, we were looking forward to
analyzing the Taxation Case Laws and find Tax Cases where the Interpretation of Statutes
has been used. This could be one of the toughest tasks because when it comes to
Interpretation, the standpoint of the Interpreter becomes essentially prevalent.

THINGS LEARNED:
Taxation laws are not in the nature of penal laws; they are substantially remedial in their
character and are intended to prevent fraud, suppress public wrong and promote the public
good. They should therefore be construed in such a way as to accomplish those objects.

12
In Grasim Industries Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that
an exemption notification in connection with a fiscal statute has to be read in its entirely and
not in parts.

In Tata Oil Mills Company v. Collector of Central Excise, there was a notification which
exempted imposition of excise duty on ‘such soap as is made from indigenous rice bran oil’.
This oil can be used in making soap only after it get converted into fatty acid. The Supreme
Court held that the exemption applied to both rice bran oil and rice bran fatty acid.

In M/s D.H Brothers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, the assesse invoked
the jurisdiction of the Commissioner , Sales Tax under section 35 U,P Sales Tax Act 1948
claiming that the ‘Kolhu’ meant for extracting juice from sugarcane was an ‘agricultural
implement’ within a 1980 notification issued by the State Government exempting agricultural
implements from levy of sales tax and as such exempt from the sales tax purview.

In Indian Cable Co Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise, the court was considering whether
excise duty was validly levied on the production of ‘PVC compound’ form PVC resin . It was
argued by the appellant that the process was one of polymerization, which would not qualify
as ‘manufacture’ within section 29f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. The Court
applied the test of ‘marketability’ to agree with the appellant and observed—

“In construing the relevant item or entry in fiscal statutes, if it is one of everyday use, the
concerned authority must normally, construe it, as to how it is understood in common
parlance or in the commercial world or trade circles, it must be given its popular meaning.
The meaning
given in the dictionary must not prevail. Nor should the entry be understood in any technical
or botanical or scientific sense. In the case of technical words, it may call for a different
approach”

In Ramavtar v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, the question was whether betel leaves are
vegetables and, therefore exempt from imposition of sales tax. The dictionary meaning of

13
vegetable was sought to be relied on wherein it has been defined as pertaining to, comprised
or
consisting of , or derived or obtained from plants, or their parts. The court was requested to
apply the rule of strict interpretation with reference to the taxing statute and since the word
could have more than one reasonable meaning, the meaning favoring the subject was to be
accepted. The Supreme Court refused to apply any technical or botanical considerations. It
was observed that when the legislature uses a particular word of everyday use in a statute the
presumption is that it has been used in this popular sense unless, there are compelling reasons
for the Court to think otherwise. Such being not the case here, there is no doubt about the
meaning of the term. Therefore, of sale of betel leaves is subject to the sales tax law.

In Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab v. K.V.T Company , a general notice was

issued to the respondent under section 22 (2) , Income Tax Act , 1922 for filing returns of
income for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1954-55 within a certain period. He could not
file the returns within that period, but filed voluntary returns in 1956 showing losses during
the two years. The Income Tax Department and the Tribunal held that carry forward of losses
was no permissible under law as the returns were filed after the expiry of the period and the
Department was therefore not bound to determine the losses

The High court held that a return could still be entertained under Section 22 (3) even though
it has not been filed within the statutory period mentioned in section 22 (1) because section
22(3) permitted acceptance of all returns showing profits or losses made voluntarily or under
a notice and so the Income Tax officer was bound to determine the losses of the respondent.
The
Supreme Court by majority rejected the appeal. It was observed that the argument that the
decision of the High Court would cause a lot of inconvenience could not be accepted only on
that ground. Further, there was a time limit under section 34 (3) of the Act after which no
voluntary returns could be filed. When two views are possible while interpreting a taxing
statute, the view favorable to the assesse must be accepted.

In T.S Ramaswami Aiyar v. M.A Rangaswami Aiyar, the question before the Court was
whether court fees should be paid ( at the rate of a plaint) by another creditor, who came in
with a claim after a preliminary decree for administration had been made in a suit for
administration. The Court held that there was no specific provision in the Court Fees Act

14
which exactly covered the point in issue, due to which no court fees could be levied on the
appellant. Rejecting an argument of analogy with plaints, the Court observed—

“And apart from that with very great respect I may say that I do not understand how any
fiscal
statute can be applied by analogy. When the state requires the subject to pay a tax of any
kind,
that must be done by definite enactment strictly interpreted; and that is a principle which we
are bound always to defend. In my opinion, there being no enactment requiring court –fee to
be paid on such claims as these, the learned District Munsif was wrong in his order; these
petitions should be allowed and the claims inquired into without Court-fees: if the petitioners
have now paid Court-fees, they should be refunded”.

WEEK 4 ENDS

It has been 4 weeks into the Internship that we have been into, and when comparing our
knowledge on the First Day and today on law and interpreting Case Laws, we witness a
significant change in our method of approach, perception qualities, the ability to cull out the
important aspects a case calls for. We were able to tap such qualities only through the
constant untiring work we underwent, with full seriousness and dedication. For all the nights
we have spent on Judgements, Case Studies, Writings, it has finally paid off in getting us the
Peace of Mind that we have, to quite some extent, mastered the basics and we are out of the
peer pressure of learning such things, for a Law Student of our Batch.

15