INTERNSHIP DIARY Gaurav

INTERNSHIP DIARY
UNDER THE GUIDANCE & SUPERVISION OF

ADVOCATE ANAND K. MISHRA
DURATION – 1st July 2017 to 31st July 2017
In the Chambers of Mr. Anand K. Mishra, Advocate-on-

Record, Supreme Court of India.
RESPECTFULLY,
SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Ms DEEPA BABBAR GAURAV SINGH
ROLL NO.-176682
SEMESTER- Vth , G
LC-1, FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
DECLARATION
This document contains the information about the legal work learnt and done by Mr. Gaurav
Singh, LL.B 3rd year, Semester Vth, Student of Law centre-1,Faculty of Law,University of
Delhi , during his internship in the Chambers of Mr. Anand K. Mishra, Advocate-on-Record,
Supreme Court of India, from 01-07-2017 to 31-07-2017. It contains the information about
the proceedings of The Supreme Court, The High Court of Delhi, Delhi District Courts and
The Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench), and about the Research and Drafting
Work done during the course of his internship.
Approving Authority: Prepared By:
Office of Mr. Anand K. Mishra Gaurav Singh
Advocate-on-Record LL.B (G) Sem- Vth
Supreme Court of India LC-1,FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Factual and Analytical Information during the Internship
During my internship counsel gives me opportunity to study the cases , conduct research on
the cases, attend Arbitrary proceedings and also to draft legal notice, appeal, written
submission and complaints.
Date: July 1, 2017

 Prepared a brief note for a case in hand regarding section 9 of The arbitration &
conciliation act, 2015.
 Attended a Briefing Conference with a Senior Counsel for a case in hand.
 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to Limitation in case of
Succession Certificate.
Date: July 3, 2017

 Attended the Arbitration Proceedings commenced on this day in a case in hand
 Did research on some cases regarding interim injunction.
Date: July 4, 2017

 Attended the proceedings of matters relating to Arbitration Petition, listed for today
at the High Court of Delhi
 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to Grounds for Review and
the Relevance of Concession made by a Counsel in a Court of Law.
Date: July 5, 2017

 Drafted a Suit under Order XXXII of The Code of Civil Procedure,1908for recovery
of Rs. 5,63,226 /- against the defendant with the Pendent Lite Interest. MARKED
AS ANNEXURE A
 Prepared a brief of some relevant case in connection with above mentioned Complaint
Date: July 6, 2017

 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to Grounds for Review and
Concession made by a Counsel in a Court of Law is Binding or not.
 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to Further Investigation at
the behest of the Complainant.
Date: July 7, 2017

 Attended the proceedings (Examination-in-Chief and Cross Examination) of a matter
listed for today before the Ld. Asst. Sessions Judge at Saket District Court, New
Delhi.
Date: July 8, 2017
 Researched and submitted a report on the precedents pertaining to Question of Law
and Question of Fact.
Date: July 9, 2017

 Attended a meeting with a client for a case in hand.
Date: July 10, 2017

 Researched on the laws pertaining to Call Details Record and the Cell Location as the
Sole Evidence in a Criminal Proceeding.
 Drafted a Suit under Order XXXII of The Code of Civil Procedure,1908for recovery
of Rs. 6,39,827 /- against the defendant with the Pendent Lite Interest. MARKED
AS ANNEXURE B
Date: July 11, 2017

 Researched on the laws relating to Whether Benefit of Doubt be given to the Accused
if the family member of the deceased unknowingly and unintentionally touched the
crime weapon or change the setting of crime spot .
Date: July 12, 2017

 Attended the Proceedings of a matter listed for today at the Central Administrative
Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi.
 Attended the Proceedings of a matter relating to Review Petition, listed for today at
the High Court of Delhi.
Date: July 13, 2017

 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to Refund Policy of the
State when Taxes Levied by it without any Authority.
Date: July 14, 2017

 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to Grounds for Interim
Injunction Restraining a Respondent from taking any coercive action against the
Applicant.
Date: July 15, 2017

 Attended the Proceedings of matters listed for today at Saket District Court, New
Delhi.
 Drafted a Petition under section 482 of The Criminal procedure Code 1973,
challenging the legal validity of order dated 19.10.2015(Regarding the matter of
section 138and 141 of The negotiable instrument act,1881) by the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate Karkardooma District Courts, New Delhi .MARKED AS ANNEXURE C
Date: July 17, 2017

 Attended the proceedings (Examination-in-Chief) of a matter listed for today at Saket
District Court New Delhi.
 Attended the Proceedings of a matter listed for today relating to Blacklisting of
Company at the High Court of Delhi.
Date: July 18, 2017

 Attended the Public Interest Litigation proceeding in The Supreme Court of India
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to the principle of Unjust
Enrichment and Refund Policy of the State
Date: July 19, 2017

 Researched and submitted a report on the precedents relating to Manner of Conduct of
Litigation by State Authorities and the Anguish of Judiciary.
 Drafted a Suit for recovery of RS. 768100/- against the defendant with Pendent Lite
interest. MARKED AS ANNEXURE D
Date: July 20, 2017
 Researched and submitted a report on the laws relating to personal liability of public
officials to pay compensation and/or cost of litigation in 'wasteful litigations’ by the
Govt. bodies.
 Researched and submitted a report on the observations of the Judiciary with respect to
the principle ‘State is the Trustee of Public Interest’.
Date: July 21, 2017

 Attended the proceedings of a matter listed for today at the High Court of Delhi.
 Researched and submitted a report on the laws relating to Modes of Service of
Summons in a Summary Suit.
Date: July 22, 2017

 Attended the proceedings (Cross Examination) of a matter listed for today at Patiala
House Court, New Delhi.
 Drafted a Statutory Demand Notice demanding payment of Rs. 1,86,02,887 in respect
of unpaid operational debt due from Mr. Vipul Limited Under Section 8 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016. MARKED AS ANNEXURE E
Date: July 24, 2017

 Attended a meeting with a Client for a matter relating to Insolvency and Bankruptcy.
Date: July 25, 2017

 Attended the Proceedings of a matter relating to Winding Up of Companies, listed for
today at the High Court of Delhi.
 Drafted a Complaint against South Delhi Municipal Corporation U/S
166,166A,120B,173,177182,426441,442,503 Of Indian Penal Code,1860.MARKED
AS ANNEXURE F
Date: July 26, 2017

 Attended the Proceedings of a matter listed for today at the Hiigh Court of Delhi.
Date: July 27, 2017

 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to the Initiation of
Insolvency/Winding up Proceedings when there is an Arbitration Clause in the
Agreement.
 Prepared the list of Dates for a case in hand relating to Winding up of Companies.
Date: July 28, 2017

 Researched and submitted a report on the laws pertaining to Roles and Powers of a
Private Counsel engaged by the Complainant in a Criminal Proceedings.
 Drafted a Statutory notice(without prejudice) under section 80 of the code of civil
procedure, 1908. MARKED AS ANNEXURE G
Date: July 29, 2017

 Researched on the laws relating to the principle The Laws made by the Parliament are
always Presumed to be Correct unless Proved Otherwise.
Date: July 31,2017

 Completed all the researches and Drafting works.
List of Annexures
1. ANNEXURE A……………………………………………….8
2. ANNEXURE B……………………………………………...17
3. ANNEXURE C………………………………………………25
4. ANNEXURE D………………………………………………34
5. ANNEXURE E……………………………………………….43
6. ANNEXURE F……………………………………………….50
7. ANNEXURE G………………………………………………54
ANNEXURE -A
IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE SAKET COURTS,

DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO OF 2017
(UNDER ORDER XXXII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S HIMALAYAN FLORA AND AROMA PVT LTD …PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S BROAD VIEW MEDIA COM PVT LTD. …DEFENDANT
SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR
RECOVERY OF RS 5,63,226/- (INR FIVE LAKH SIXTY THREE THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED TWENTY SIX ONLY) AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WITH PENDENT
LITE INTEREST @ 24% P.A FROM THE DATE OF FILING TILL THE FULL AND
FINAL PAYMENT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Plaintiff is constraint to institute the present suit against the Defendant under
order XXXII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of Rs. 5,63,226/- (INR
Five Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Six Only) borne out due to
failure of contractual liability on part of the Defendant. That the defendant, despite
continuous follow up, numerous reminders and several legal notices from the
plaintiff, has deliberately chose not to pay the outstanding amount due to the Plaintiff.
That the plaintiff after pursuing the defendant for a considerably long period of time
and failing in all its efforts to recover the outstanding amount has approached this Ld.
Court to seek Justice.

2. That the plaintiff M/s Himalayan Flora and Aroma Pvt. Ltd. is a registered under
companies act 1956. That the Plaintiff is registered advertising company and runs its
business by way of outdoor advertising for any services or products on its sites
allotted by Municipal Corporations or any other government body or state
instrumentality or private persons.
3. That it is pertinent to mention that the Plaintiff run some of its advertisement sites
under the name and style of M/S SIGNAGE and treats the same as its subsidiary
body. Moreover M/S SIGNAGE is a brand of the plaintiff which has been establish
during the years to attain a distinctive identity in the business of outdoor advertising
and to explore better business opportunities yet the brand is solely controlled by the
plaintiff.
4. That the plaintiff has authorized, Mr……………………., vide
…………,……………………, to file the present suit against the Defendant and to
sign and to verify the pleadings, swear on the affidavits, tender evidence, file appeals,
if required and to do all other incidental and ancillary tasks, as may be necessary at
any stage to recover the amounts owed to the plaintiff from the Defendant.
5. That the Defendant, Broadview Mediacom Pvt. Ltd. is a media communication
agency and had been doing business with the plaintiff by fetching it advertisements
from third parties. That the advertisements were being displayed on the sites of the
plaintiff and in return the plaintiff was to be paid rent for displaying advertisements
for the Defendant.
6. That the defendant approached the plaintiff to rent its sites situated alongside the
DND Flyway (Delhi-Noida). That the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a mutual
agreement whereby the plaintiff was to display advertisement on behalf of the

Defendant and in return the defendant was to pay rent to the plaintiff for using its
sites.
7. That after the mutual agreement various purchase orders and electronic confirmations
were made by the Defendant whereupon the plaintiff started displaying the
advertisements and raised bills subsequently. That the details of the invoices are given
herein below:
Bill no. Bill date Bill amount Order details
1887 22/08/2013 83,333-00 69/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14
1915 05/10/2013 60,000-00 80/SIGNAGE/AD/13-14
1948 30/11/2013 75,000-00 Mail Confirmation
1983 13/01/2014 100,000-00 145/SIGNAGE/AD/13-14
1984 13/01/2014 100,000-00 144/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14
1985 13/01/2014 70,000-00 141/SIGNAGE/VOGUE/13-14
2118 04/08/2014 100,000-00 39/SINGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2131 05/08/2014 100,000-00 47/SIGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2119 05/08/2014 150,000-00 42/SIGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2171 08/10/2014 112,360-00 61/SIGNAGE/GQ/14-15
2183 10/11/2014 112,360-00 65/SIGNAGE/GQ/14-15
Total amount 1203053.00/-

(INR. Twelve Lakh three thousand fifty three only)
8. That as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the defendant made various purchase
orders in favor of the plaintiff order from time to time and the plaintiff working
accordingly displayed the advertisements diligently and raised bills against each and
every purchase order.
9. That the plaintiffs displayed the advertisements as per the purchase order and raised
bills against the same but the defendant never paid it on time and kept delaying the
payment to the Plaintiff. That the plaintiff on the other hand, believing defendant as
one of his potential clients never pressed for payment and kept on displaying the
advertisement for the defendant.
10. That it is only after lapse of a considerable amount of time, and not being paid a
single penny, the plaintiff started pursuing the defendant for payment against the
purchase orders. That it is pertinent to mention that the total bill consolidated into RS.
12,03,053/- (Inr Twelve Lakh Three Thousand Fifty Three Only) and yet the
defendant not inclined to pay the bills raised by the Plaintiff and kept it pending on
false assurances.
11. That after persistent requests and follow ups by the plaintiff, the defendant finally
issued five account payee cheques of different dates against the outstanding amount.
That detail of the cheques are mentioned herein below:
S.L Bank Cheque Amount Dated
1. ING Vyshya Bank 867284 98000/- 08/10/2014
2. DO- 867282 147000/- 21/10/2014
3. DO- 867278 98000/- 20/10/2014
4. DO- 867334 110113/- 12/12/2014
5. DO- 551786 110113/- 30/01/2015
Total Rs. 5,63,226
(INR Five Lakh Sixty three
thousand two hundred

twenty six only)
12. That the Defendant firstly issued the first four cheques as mention in the preceding
paragraph. That the plaintiff presented the said cheques in his bank, but to utter shock
and dismay of the plaintiff all the cheques were returned back unpaid by the bank for
the reasons “insufficient fund”. That the plaintiff informed the defendant about the
same and was assured by the Defendant to present the cheques again and the cheques
will be duly honored. That believing the defendant again the plaintiff decided to
present first cheque again but the same was again returned unpaid by the bank for the
reason “stopped payment”.
13. That the defendant stooped lowest when it issued fifth Cheque bearing no. 551786
dated 31.01.2015 to the Plaintiff and the same was returned by the plaintiff’s bank for
reason “account closed” That conduct of the defendant speaks volumes itself and
establishes malafide on part of the defendant.
14. That the details of the dishonored cheques and along with date of presentation and
reason for dishonor are mentioned herein below:
Cheque Date of Issuance Date of presentation Reason for
No. dishonor
867284 08/10/2014 17.10.2014/ Payment stopped by
18.12.2014 drawer
867282 21/10/2014 18.12.2014 Funds insufficient
551786 30/01/2015 03/02.2015 A/c closed

15. That the conduct of the defendant clearly indicates that the defendant duped the
plaintiff in a very calculative manner and it also appears that the defendant never
intended to meet its contractual obligation bourne out of the contract entered into
between the parties. That the malafideof the defendant is established from the fact that
at the first instance the defendant kept delaying the payments(consideration) and later
on issued the said cheques only to win confidence of the plaintiff to achieve illegal
profits and at last closed the account on which the cheques were issued.
16. That the plaintiff, defied by the defendants and having failed to find any amicable
solution to get the its money back, issued three legal notices on the defendant on
4.10.2014, 12.01.2015 and 27.02.2015 respectively, which were duly delivered to the
defendant but yet the defendant having utter disregard to law and order, voluntarily
chose not to reply the same. That the plaintiff, failing to get any response against its
legal notices on the defendant, filed two Complaints under section 138 r/w 141 of the
Negotiable Act, and the same are pending adjudication before Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate in Karkarduma Courts, New Delhi.
17. That it is pertinent to mention that the present suit is instituted only to the extent of
recovery of amount payable to the Plaintiff due to dishonor of cheques, and not for the
total amount due to the plaintiff against the purchase orders mentioned hereinabove.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff has instituted two separate suits; one under Order XXXVII
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in form of summary suit for the recovery of amount
Rs 6,39,827/- ( INR Six Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Seven
Only); due against the purchase orders ( after deduction of the amount claimed herein
from the total due amount) as mentioned hereinabove and the another in form of
ordinary suit for the interest on total amount; consolidating both the claim amount
into one i.e. Rs.1203053/-

18. That the value of the suit is valued as per the Suit Valuation Act and the present suit,
for the purpose of jurisdiction as well for court fees is valued ut infra:
Amount due Rs. 5,63,226/-
Total Rs. 5,63,226
Net amount payable by the Defendant Company upto the date of filing of the present
suit i.e .10.2017 is Rs. 5,63,226/- (INR Five Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Two
Hundred Twenty Six Only) and the court fee payable on the same is Rs 7822 /- (INR
Seven Thousand Eight Hundred twenty two only).However, if there is any deficiency
in calculation of the court fee, Plaintiff seeks the liberty of the Ld. Court to make
payment of the deficient amount.
19. That the cause of action for the present suit arose first when the plaintiff raised the
first invoice bearing no. 1887 on 22.08.2013 against the purchase order bearing no.
69/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14 made on 14.08.2013 and subsequently on each and every
occasion when the invoices were raised against the different purchase orders of the
Defendant. That the cause of action arose again when the defendant issued the
cheques bearing no. 867284, 867282, 867278, 867334, 551786 on 08/10/2014,
21/10/2014, 20/10/2014, 12/12/2014, 30/01/2015 respectively and they got
dishonored on 17.10.2014/18.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 18.12.2014,
03/02.2015 respectively with remarks funds insufficient/payment stopped by the
drawer/ A/c closed. That the cause of action arose again when the plaintiff issued
legal notices on the defendant on 4.10.2014, 12.01.2015 and 27.02.2015 respectively.
It arose again when the defendant failed to reply the legal notices within the
prescribed period of time. That the cause of action arose again when the plaintiff had
to file complaints against the defendant under N.I Act on 21.02.2015. That the cause
of action is still continuing.
20. That since the Defendant is having its registered office at Delhi, the Hon’ble Court
has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.
21. That since the value of the suit is less than Rs. 2,00,00,000/- the Hon’ble Court has
pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate this suit.
22. That the present suit is within the time limit as prescribed by the law and is not barred
by limitation or any other latches.
23. That the requisite court fees as per the valuation under para 17 of the suit is paid. That
the present suit is preferred bonafide and in the interest of justice and if the present
suit is not allowed the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and irretrievable injuries
to its finances and goodwill. That the Plaintiff has not preferred any other petition or
suit before any court of law or Tribunal on the same ground.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to the Hon’ble Court that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:
a. Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant under Order
XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,63,226/- (INR Five Lakh Sixty
Three Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Six Only) along-with pendent lite and future
interest till the date of actual and full and final realization of the same; and
b. Pass such other order/s in the interest of justice and in favour of the Plaintiff as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Plaintiff
Through
Counsel
ANNEXURE- B

DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2017
(UNDER ORDER XXXII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
M/S BROAD VIEW MEDIA COM PVT. LTD. …DEFENDANT
SUIT UNDER ORDER XXXII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 FOR
RECOVERY OF RS 6,39,827/- ( INR SIX LAKH THIRTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHT
HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN ONLY) AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WITH
PENDENT LITE INTEREST @ 24% P.A FROM THE DATE OF FILING TILL THE
FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT.
1. That the Plaintiff is constraint to institute the present suit against the defendant under
order XXXII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recovery of Rs 6,39,827/- ( INR
Six Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Seven Only) borne out due to
failure of contractual liability on part of the Defendant. That the defendant, despite
continuous follow up, numerous reminders and several legal notices from the
plaintiff, has deliberately chose not to pay the outstanding amount due to the Plaintiff.
That the plaintiff after pursuing the defendant for a considerably long period of time
and failing in all its efforts to recover the outstanding amount has approached this Ld.
Court to seek Justice.
2. That the plaintiff M/s Himalayan Flora and Aroma Pvt. Ltd. is a registered under
plaintiff.
4. That the plaintiff has authorized, Mr……………………., vide
for the Defendant.
6. That the defendant approached the plaintiff to rent its sites situated alongside the
DND Flyway (Delhi-Noida). That the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a mutual
agreement whereby the plaintiff was to display advertisement on behalf of the
Defendant and in return the defendant was to pay rent to the plaintiff for using its
sites.
advertisements and raised bills subsequently. That the details of the invoices are given
herein below:
Bill no. Bill date Bill amount Order details
1887 22/08/2013 83,333-00 69/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14
1915 05/10/2013 60,000-00 80/SIGNAGE/AD/13-14
1983 13/01/2014 100,000-00 145/SIGNAGE/AD/13-14
1984 13/01/2014 100,000-00 144/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14
1985 13/01/2014 70,000-00 141/SIGNAGE/VOGUE/13-14
2118 04/08/2014 100,000-00 39/SINGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2131 05/08/2014 100,000-00 47/SIGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2119 05/08/2014 150,000-00 42/SIGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2171 08/10/2014 112,360-00 61/SIGNAGE/GQ/14-15
2183 10/11/2014 112,360-00 65/SIGNAGE/GQ/14-15
Total amount 1203053.00

(INR. Twelve Lakh three thousand fifty three only)
9. That the plaintiffs displayed the advertisements as per the purchase order and raised
bills against the same but the defendant never paid it on time and kept delaying the
payment to the Plaintiff. That the plaintiff on the other hand, believing defendant as
one of his potential clients never pressed for payment and kept on displaying the
advertisement for the defendant.
10. That it is only after lapse of a considerable amount of time, and not being paid a
single penny, the plaintiff started pursuing the defendant for payment against the
purchase orders. That it is pertinent to mention that the total bill consolidated into RS.
12,03,053/- (Inr Twelve Lakh Three Thousand Fifty Three Only) and yet the
defendant not inclined to pay the bills raised by the Plaintiff and kept it pending on
false assurances.
1. ING Vyshya Bank 867284 98000/- 08/10/2014
2. DO- 867282 147000/- 21/10/2014
3. DO- 867278 98000/- 20/10/2014
4. DO- 867334 110113/- 12/12/2014
5. DO- 551786 110113/- 30/01/2015
Total
Rs. 5,63,226/-
(INR Five Lakh Sixty three thousand two hundred
twenty six only)
12. That the Defendant firstly issued the first four cheques as mention in the preceding
No. dishonor
18.12.2014 drawer
551786 30/01/2015 03/02.2015 A/c closed
intended to meet its contractual obligation bourne out of the contract entered into
between the parties. That the malafideof the defendant is established from the fact that
at the first instance the defendant kept delaying the payments(consideration) and later
on issued the said cheques only to win confidence of the plaintiff to achieve illegal
profits and at last closed the account on which the cheques were issued.
choose not to reply the same.
17. That it is pertinent to mention that the present suit is instituted only to the extent of
recovery of amount due against the purchase orders after deducting the amount
payable to plaintiff due the dishonor of the cheques issued by the Defendants towards
discharge of contractual liability arose on the same due to the said purchase orders,
and hence the amount claimed herein the present summary suit is:
Total payable amount against the purchase orders = 12,03,053.00

(minus) -
Amount payable due to dishonor of the cheques = 05,63,226.00
AMOUNT CLAIMED HEREIN = 06,39,827.00
(INR Six Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Seven Only)
18. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has instituted two separate suits; one under Order XXXVII
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in form of summary suit for the recovery of amount
Rs. 5,63,226; payable to the Plaintiff due to dishonor of cheques, and the another in
form of ordinary suit for the interest on total amount consolidating both the claim
amount into one i.e. Rs.(1203053)
Amount due : Rs. 6,39,827.00

Total Rs.6,39,827.00
Net amount payable by the Defendant Company upto the date of filing of the present
suit i.e .10.2017 is Rs. 6,39,827.00 /- (INR Six Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Eight
Hundred Twenty Seven Only) and the court fee payable on the same is Rs. 8589/-
(INR Eight Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Nine Only). However, if there is any
deficiency in calculation of the court fee, Plaintiff seeks the liberty of the Ld. Court to
make payment of the deficient amount.
cheques bearing no.867284,867282, 867278, 867334, 551786 on 08/10/2014,
dishonored on 17.10.2014/18.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 18.12.2014,
drawer/ A/c closed. That the cause of action arose again when the plaintiff issued two
legal notices on the defendant on 4.10.2014 and 12.01.2015 respectively. It arose
again when the defendant failed to reply the legal notices within the prescribed period
of time. That the cause of action arose again when the plaintiff had to file complaints
against the defendant under N.I Act on 21.02.2015. That the cause of action is still
continuing.

24. That the requisite court fees as per the valuation under para 19 of the suit is paid. That
suit before any court of law or Tribunal on the same ground.
PRAYER
pleased to:
c. Pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant under Order
XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,39,827/- (INR Six Lakh Thirty
Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Seven Only)along-with pendent lite and future
interest till the date of actual and full and final realization of the same; and
d. Pass such other order/s in the interest of justice and in favour of the Plaintiff as this
Plaintiff
Through
Counsel
ANNEXURE- C
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRIMINAL Mis. No .………../2017
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S SIGNAGE …PETITIONER
VERSUS
M/S BROADVIEW MEDIACOM PVT. LTD. & ORS
…RESPONDENTS
PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973,
ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, CHALLENGING THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF
ORDER DATED19.10.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, KARKARDOOMA DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI IN
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. 47372 OF 2016.
1. That petitioner has preferred the present petition against the impugned order dated
19.10.2015 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkarduma District Court, New
Delhi, whereby, the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, erroneously refused to issue
summons against Respondent No.2 and 3 being director and authorized signatory
observing that where there were no specific averments made against the Accused
persons in the complaints, they could not be summoned, and refused to issue
summons to Respondent No. 2 and 3.A certified Copy of the order dated 19.10.2015
is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-1.

2. That the Petitioner, M/s Signage is a division of M/s Himalayan Flora and Aroma Pvt.
Ltd. registered under Companies Act 1956. That the Petitioner is registered
advertising company and runs its business by way of outdoor advertising for any
services or products on its sites allotted by municipal corporations or any other
government body or state instrumentality or private persons. That the present petition
is being filed by the Petitioner through Mr. Gaurav Vijh, who is one of the Directors
of the Company and is well conversant with the facts of the case. Mr. Gaurav Vij his
authorized to file and conduct the present petition vide Board Resolution dated
……………….passed unanimously in his favour. A copy of the board resolution is
annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure P-2.
3. That the Respondent No. 1 i.e. Broadview Mediacom Pvt. Ltd. is a media
communication agency and had been doing business with the Petitioner fetching it
advertisements from third parties. That the advertisements were being displayed on
the sites of the Petitioner and in return it was to be paid rent for displaying
advertisements by Respondent No.1.That the Respondent No. 2 is the Managing
director and Respondent No. 3 is authorized signatory of Respondent No. 3 and are
conducting and supervising the day to day transactions of Respondent No.1.
4. That Respondent No. 4 is state and the same has been made only performa party and
no relief has been sought against Respondent no.4.
5. Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:
I. That the Respondent No.1 through its officers approached the Petitioner to
rent its sites situated alongside the DND Flyway (Delhi-Noida). That the
Petitioner agreed to display advertisement on its sites upon the payment of the
rent.Thereafter various purchase orders and electronic confirmations were

made by Respondent no.1 whereupon the Petitioner started displaying the
advertisements and raised bills subsequently.
II. That respondent no.1 made various purchase orders in favor of the Petitioner
from time to time and the Petitioner working accordingly displayed the
advertisements diligently and raised bills against each and every purchase
order.That the Petitioner displayed the advertisements as per the purchase
order and raised bills against the same but Respondent No.1 never paid it on
time. That the Petitioner considering its professional relationship with
Respondent No.1 never pressed for payment and kept on displaying the
advertisement for the Respondent.
III. That it is only after thelapse of a considerable amount of time, and not being
paid a single penny, the Petitioner started pursuing Respondent No.1 for
payment towards the bills raised for displaying advertisement on its sites. That
it is pertinent to mention that the total bill consolidated into Rs.10,90,693 /-
and yet the Respondents were not inclined to pay the bills raised by the
Petitioner and kept it pending on false assurances.
IV. That after persistent requests and follow ups by the Petitioner, Respondent
No.1 finally issued five account payee cheques of different dates against the
outstanding amount. That detail of the cheques are mentioned herein below:
1. ING Vyshya Bank 867284 980000/- 08/10/2014
2. DO- 867282 147000/- 21/10/2014
3. DO- 867278 98000/- 20/10/2014
4. DO- 867334 110113/- 12/12/2014
5. DO- 551786 112360/- 30/01/2015

That it is pertinent to mention that for the First four cheques Cheques, bearing
No’s 867284, 867282, 867278, 867334, respectively, a separate complaint is
pending adjudication, wherein Respondent No.2 and 3 i.e. “Managing
Director” and “Director & authorized signatory” both have been summoned by
the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate therein. The present petition only deals with
the 5th Cheque i.e. 551786
V. That Respondent No. 1, firstly issued the first four cheques as mention in the
preceding paragraph. That the Petitioner presented the said cheques in his
bank, but to utter shock and dismay of the Petitioner, all the cheques were
returned back unpaid by the bank for the reasons “insufficient fund”. That the
Petitioner informed Respondent No.2 about the same and was assured by
Respondent no.2 to present the cheques again and the cheques will be duly
honored. That believing Respondent no.2, the Petitioner decided to present the
first cheque dated 08.10.2014 bearing No. 867284 again, but the same was
returned unpaid by the bank for the reason “stopped payment”.
VI. That the details of the dishonored cheques and along with the date of
presentation and reason for dishonor are mentioned herein below:
No. dishonor
18.12.2014 drawer

551786 30/01/2015 03/02.2015 A/c closed
VII. That the Petitioner, duped by Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and having failed to
find any amicable solution to get its money back, issued legal notice dated
04.10.2014,which was duly served on the Respondents but yet the Respondent
having utter disregard to law and order, voluntarily chose not to make the
payments. That the Petitioner, failing to get any response against its legal
notice filed a complaint, under section 138 R/w 141 of the Negotiable Act
1881. The Complaint was originally filed in the Saket District Court but later
on, it was transferred to Karkarduma District Courts and presently pending
adjudication before Sh. Prayank Nayak, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate,
Karkarduma Courts (East), Delhi. That copy of the complete set of the said
complaint is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3(Colly).
VIII. That on 19. 10.2015, at the time of issuing summons to the Accused persons,
the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, having wrongly contemplated the issue and
ignoring mandate of the Hon’ble High Court as well as apex court on the issue
refused to issue summons to Respondent No.2 and 3 on the ground that there
were no specific averments against them and hence they could not be
summoned in the present proceedings.
3. That the Petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2015 of the Ld. M.M asked the
previous counsel to take necessary action against the order and ensure that the
Respondents No.2 and 3 are also summoned, but it was delayed due to one reason or
another. That the Petitioner seeing nothing material happening in the matter, discharged
the counsel engaged previously and engaged the present Counsel. That the present
Counsel having gone through all the previous proceedings and keeping in mind the
concerned statute and the leading case laws has come to conclusion that the order dated
19.10.2015 is not maintainable and passed in gross negligence of the concerned statute
and misinterpreting the prevailing case laws on the issue and has preferred the present
petition on behalf of the Petitioner.
4. That in these hard-pressed circumstances, the Petitioner has no other equally efficacious
remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the instant petition challenging
the orders dated 19.10.2015 inter alia amongst the following:-
Grounds
A. The Ld. M.M Failed to appreciate the fact that the sole purpose of forming a
Company is to earn aprofit, which is utilized for the welfare of the natural person
engaged with the Company and for the company itself. For the efficient working of
the company certain pivotal designation has to be acquired by the person(s) which is
deemed to be acquainted with the affairs of the company and in the like scenario it is
not necessary to aver specifically the role of the Managing Director, Director, signing
authority and other important authority of the company having check on the
company’s day to day transaction.
B. The Ld. M.M Failed to appreciate the judgment and the principles carved out by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C No.4077/2011 titled “Ranjit Tiwari v.
Narender Nayyar and the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled National Small Industries
Cooperation Ltd. V. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr., Crl. A.No. 320-330 of 2010.
C. The Ld. M.M Failed to appreciate the judgment inS.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs.
Neeta Bhalla and Another 2005 Cri. L.J. 4140 (SC), it has been held by Hon'ble
Apex Court that "the question notes that the Managing Director or Joint Managing
Director would be admittedly in charge of the company and responsible to the
company for theconduct of its business. When that is so, holder of these positions in a
company become liable under Sec.141 of the Act. By virtue of the office, they hold as
Managing Director or Joint Managing Director these persons are in charge of and
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Therefore, they get
covered under Sec.141. So far asthe signatory of athe cheque which is dishonored is
concerned, he is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and will be covered
under subsection (2) of Sec.141."
D. The Ld. M.M Failed to appreciate the fact that practice of making Managing Director,
Director and Signing Authority as a party to the legal proceeding if some criminal
offenses are committed by the company is the usual practice. Since thecompany is not
a natural person consequently cannot be prosecuted, which will render the whole
purpose of giving authority to a natural person to act on behalf of the company
infructuous and impractical.
E. The Ld. M.M Failed to appreciate that the Section 141 states that if the person
committing an offense under Section 138 is a Company, every director of such
Company who was in charge of and responsible to that Company for theconduct of its
business shall also be deemed to be guilty. The reason for creating vicarious liability
is plainly that a juristic entity i.e. a Company would be run by living persons who are
in charge of its affairs and who guide the actions of that Company and that if such
juristic entity is guilty, those who were so responsible for its affairs and who guided
actions of such juristic entity must be held responsible and ought to be proceeded
against. Section 141 again does not lay down any requirement that in such eventuality
the directors must individually be issued separate notices under Section 138. The
persons who are in charge of the affairs of the Company and running its affairs must
naturally be aware of the notice of demand under Section 138 of the Act issued to
such Company. It is precisely for this reason that no notice is

additionallycontemplated to be given to such directors. The opportunity to the
‘drawer’ Company is considered good enough for those who are in charge of the
affairs of such Company.
F. The Ld. M.M failed to appreciate the fact that Respondent No. 2 & 3 had been made
parties to the complaint, but Ld. M.M refused to issue summons against Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3.
G. The Ld. M.M Failed to appreciate the fact that respondent 2 i.e the managing director
of respondent no.1 & Respondent no.3 i.e Director and the Signing Authority of
Respondent no.1 holding an apex position in the company.Moreover, they have a
pivotal role to play in executing the working of Respondent No.1.Hence it is
unacceptable to believe that the Respondent No. 3 who is the signing Authority,
signed the Cheques without even knowing the Consequences.
H. The Ld. M.M Failed to appreciate that the principal offender in each case is only the
body cooperate and it is the juristic person and when the company is the drawer of the
cheque, such company is the principal offender and the remaining person are made
liable by virtue of legal fiction created by legislation as per section 141.
I. The Ld. M.M failed to appreciate that Four Cheques of the Respondents were
dishonored with the Remark “INSUFFICIENT BALANCE” and “STOP
PAYMENT”. After that when the Fifth cheque bearing No. 551786 issued by the
Respondents with the assurance that this time it will not return unpaid but again
cheque was dishonored with the Remark “ACCOUNT CLOSED”. This indicates
malafide intention and planned action on the part of Respondents. Since Respondent
No. 2 and Respondent No.3 continuously asking for the more time and giving
assurance of paying the amount soon even after knowing well that they had neither
sufficient balance in his bank account nor he had made any alternative arrangements
for crediting the necessary amount against the same.
J. That the Petitioner reserves his right to take other and further grounds with the
permission of the Hon’ble Court as may be available at the time of argument.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed to this Hon’bleCourt that this
Hon’bleCourt may be pleased to:
1. Call for the records of the trial court and set aside the impugned order dated
19.10.2015 and also direct the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate to issue summons to the
Respondent No.2 & 3.
2. Pass such other order/s in the interest of justice and in favor of the Petitioner as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
Petitioner
Through
ANAND MISHRA
Counsel for the Petitioner
ANNEXURE- D
DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
M/S BROAD VIEW MEDIA COM PVT LTD. …DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 768100/- (INR SEVEN LAKH SIXTY EIGHT
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED ONLY) AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WITH
PENDENT LITE INTEREST @ 24% P.A FROM THE DATE OF FILING TILL THE
FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT
24. That the Plaintiff is constrained to institute the present suit against the Defendant for
recovery of the interest sum of Rs. 768100/- (Inr Seven Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand
One Hundred Only) borne out due to failure of contractual liability amounting to Rs.
1203053/- (INR. Twelve Lakh three thousand fifty three only) on the part of the
Defendant. That the defendant, despite continuous follow ups, numerous reminders
and several legal notices from the plaintiff, has deliberately chose not to pay the
outstanding amount due to the Plaintiff. That the plaintiff after pursuing the defendant
for a considerably long period of time and failing in all its efforts to recover the
outstanding amount has approached this Ld. Court to seek Justice.
25. That the amount claimed herein the present recovery suit is only limited to the interest
part of the principal amount Rs. 1203053/- (INR. Twelve Lakh three thousand fifty
three only) charged at the rate of 18% per annum since the cause of action arose for
the first time due to nonpayment of bills (Contractual liability) by the Defendant
towards the services provided by the Plaintiff Company. That the Plaintiff has filed
two different suits under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure for the
recovery of the principal amount.
26. That the Plaintiff, M/s Himalayan Flora and Aroma Pvt. Ltd. is a registered under
plaintiff.
28. That the plaintiff has authorized, Mr ……………………., vide
for the Defendant.
30. That the Defendant approached the plaintiff to rent some of its sites situated alongside
the DND Flyway (Delhi-Noida). That the Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a
mutual agreement, whereby the plaintiff was to display advertisement on behalf of the
Defendant on its sites and in return the defendant was to pay rent to the plaintiff for
using its sites.
advertisements and raised bills subsequently.
32. That the details of the invoices are given herein below:
B. No. Bill date Bill amount Order details
1887 22/08/2013 83,333/- 69/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14
1915 05/10/2013 60,000/- 80/SIGNAGE/AD/13-14
1948 30/11/2013 75,000/- Mail Confirmation
1983 13/01/2014 100,000/- 145/SIGNAGE/AD/13-14
1984 13/01/2014 100,000/- 144/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14
1985 13/01/2014 70,000/- 141/SIGNAGE/VOGUE/13-14
2118 04/08/2014 100,000/- 39/SINGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2131 05/08/2014 100,000/- 47/SIGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2119 05/08/2014 150,000/- 42/SIGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15
2171 08/10/2014 112,360/- 61/SIGNAGE/GQ/14-15
2183 10/11/2014 112,360/- 65/SIGNAGE/GQ/14-15
Total amount 1203053/-

(INR. Twelve Lakh three
thousand fifty three only)
34. That, as mentioned above, the plaintiffs displayed the advertisements as per the
purchase order and raised bills against the same but the defendant never made any
payments towards the bills raised by the plaintiff and kept evading the contractual
liability on one reason or another. That the plaintiff on the other hand, believing
Defendant to be one of its potential clients, never pressed for payment and kept on
displaying the advertisement for the defendant.
1. ING Vyshya Bank 867284 98000/- 08/10/2014
2. DO- 867282 147000/- 21/10/2014
3. DO- 867278 98000/- 20/10/2014
4. DO- 867334 110113/- 12/12/2014
5. DO- 551786 110113/- 30/01/2015
Total Rs. 5,63,226
(INR Five Lakh Sixty three
thousand two hundred
twenty six only)

36. That the Defendant, first issued the first four cheques as mention in the preceding
No. dishonor
18.12.2014 drawer
551786 30/01/2015 03/02.2015 A/c closed
intended to meet its contractual obligation borne out of the contract entered into
between the parties. That the malafide of the defendant is established from the fact
that at the first instance the defendant kept delaying the payments(consideration) and
later on issued the said cheques only to win confidence of the plaintiff to achieve
illegal profits and at last closed the account on which the cheques were issued.
chose not to reply the same. That the plaintiff, failing to get any response against its
legal notices on the defendant, filed two Complaints under section 138 r/w 141 of the
Negotiable Act, and the same are pending adjudication before Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate in Karkarduma Courts, New Delhi.
41. That, thus the plaintiff, failing in all its efforts to pursue the Defendant to pay the
outstanding amount, is constrained to institute the present recovery suit for the
recovery of the Interest amount accrued on the principal amount at the rate of 18%
towards the financial crunch and business loss suffered by the plaintiff due to
nonpayment of the bills in time. That interest on each bill has been calculated
separately till the last bill fell pending on 10.11.2014 and thereafter all the bill
amounts are accumulated into one and the interest in charged on the total amount.
42. That the table herein below shows the interest charged on the separate bill till
10.11.2014 i.e. the date
Bill no. Bill date Bill amount Interest amount @ rate of
18% till 10/11/2014
1887 22/08/2013 83,333/- 18134.92

1915 05/10/2013 60,000/- 10983.60
1948 30/11/2013 75,000/- 12744.00
1949 30/11/2013 70,000/- 11894.40
1950 30/11/2013 70,000/- 11894.40
1983 13/01/2014 100,000/- 14886.00
1984 13/01/2014 100,000/- 14886.00
1985 13/01/2014 70,000/- 10420.00
2118 04/08/2014 100,000/- 4788.00
2131 05/08/2014 100,000/- 4752.00
2119 05/08/2014 150,000/- 7128
2171 08/10/2014 112,360/- 1786.50
2183 10/11/2014 112,360/- 00/00
Total amount Rs.124298/-

( INR One Lakh Twenty Four
Thousand Two Hundred
Ninety Eight only)
43. That the interest payable on Rs. 12,03,053 since 10.11.2014 till 01.11.2017 at the rate
of 18% is almost Rs. 643802/- (INR Six Lakh Forty Three Thousand Eight Hundred
two only)
Thus the total interest amount is:
Rs. 124298/- + Rs. 643802/- = Rs 768100/-
(INR Seven Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred only)
44. That it is reiterated that the present suit is instituted only to the extent of recovery of
interest amount Rs 768100/- (INR Seven Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand One
Hundred only) on the total amount i.e. Rs. 1203053/- (INR. Twelve Lakh three
thousand fifty three only); payable to the Plaintiff by the Defendant since the time
cause of action arose for the first time.
45. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has instituted two separate suits under Order XXXVII of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in form of summary suit for the recovery of amount
Rs. 1203053; due against the purchase orders as mentioned hereinabove and the
another for recovery of the money due to the plaintiff due to the dishonor of the
cheques mentioned herein above the present suit.
Amount due Rs. 768100/-
Total Rs. 768100/-
Net amount payable by the Defendant Company till today i.e 01.11.2017 is Rs.
768100/- (INR Seven Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred only) and the
court fee payable on the same is Rs 9900 /- (INR Nine Thousand Nine hundred
Only).However, if there is any deficiency in calculation of the court fee, Plaintiff
seeks the liberty of the Ld. Court to make payment of the deficient amount.
cheques bearing no.867284, 867282, 867278, 867334, 551786 on 08/10/2014,
dishonored on 17.10.2014/18.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 18.12.2014,

drawer/ A/c closed. That the cause of action arose again when the plaintiff issued two
legal notices on the defendant on 4.10.2014, 12.01.2015 and 27.02.2015 respectively.
It arose again when the defendant failed to reply the legal notices within the
prescribed period of time. That the cause of action arose again when the plaintiff had
to file complaints against the defendant under N.I Act on 21.02.2015. That the cause
of action is still continuing.
51. That the requisite court fees as per the valuation under Para 23 of the suit is paid. That
suit before any court of law or Tribunal on the same ground

PRAYER
pleased to:
e. Pass a decree in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for recovery of a sum
of Rs. 768100/- (INR Seven Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred only)
along-with pendent lite and future interest till the date of actual and full and final
realization of the same; and
f. Pass such other order/s in the interest of justice and in favor of the Plaintiff as this
Plaintiff
Through
Counsel
ANNEXURE-E
Letter No. MnP/04/2017-18 October 26, 2017
Through-Speed Post/E-mail
To,
M/s Vipul Limited
Through its Director,
Reg. office at:
Corporate Office at:
Vipul Tech Square, Golf Course Road,
Sector-43, Gurugram, Haryana-122009, India
…………Corporate Debtor
From,
Mrs. Ritu Yadav
(Proprietor of M/s Choice Worldwide Media)
G-12/A, 1st Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
…………Operational Creditor
SUBJECT: Statutory demand notice demanding payment of Rs. 1,86,02,887
(Rupees One Crore eighty six lakh two thousand eight hundred eighty seven only) in
respect of unpaid operational debt due from M/s Vipul Limited under S. 8 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Dear Messer,
This is a statutory demand notice u/s 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016,
demanding payment of Rs. 1,86,02,887 (Rupees One Crore eighty six lakh two thousand
eight hundred eighty seven only) being an unpaid operational debt due from M/s Vipul
Limited (Please find particulars of the unpaid operational debt below:
PARTICULARS OF OPERATIONAL DEBT
2.1.1TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEBT
The total outstanding amounts to Rs. 1,86,02,887 (Rupees One Crore eighty six
lakh two thousand eight hundred eighty seven only) along with future interest at
the rate of 12% till the full and final payment of the outstanding amount.
2.1.2DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH DEBT FELL
DUE:
a. That the Operational Creditor is in the business of outdoor advertising and carries
on her business through a proprietorship in the name and style of M/s Choice
Worldwide Media , in accordance with the law in accordance with law. She
carries on the business at various places in Delhi NCR amongst other places.
b. That the Corporate Debtor is a real estate company and approached the
Operational Creditor for advertisement of its business by way of various modes of
outdoor advertisement. That agreeing to the terms and condition proposed by the
Operational Creditor, the Corporate Debtor made various purchase orders from
time to time for the advertisement, and the Operational Creditor complying the
said orders displayed the advertisements and raised the invoices.
c. That the operational creditor raised first invoice towards the advertisement on
02.09.2013 amounting Rs. 6,50,000/- (INR Six Lakh Fifty Thousand only) and
other bills subsequently; every time the Corporate Debtor made a purchase order.
That though the Corporate Debtor never made the payments towards the invoices
in time, yet the operational creditor kept on advertising on behalf the Corporate
Debtor under bonafide belief that the same will be paid sooner or later.
d. That every time a bill became pending, the operational creditor charged an interest
at the rate of 12% per year on the same and the operational debtor never expressly
or impliedly opposed to pay the same, thus there is no instance of dispute
regarding the pending amount and the Operational debtor is under contractual
obligation to clear the dues.
e. That the operational debtor made the last payment towards the outstanding
amount on 28.11.2014 whereby it issued two cheques bearing Nos 70237 and
01479 amounting Rs. 88,172/- (INR eighty eight thousand one hundred seventy
two only) and Rs. 5,174/- (INR five thousand one hundred seventy four only)
respectively, were secured by the operational Creditor by presenting both the
cheques to her Bank.
f. That, however, the operational debtor kept placing purchase orders even after
28.11.2014 and the operational creditor kept displaying the advertisement on its
behalf, but subsequent to the said date the operational debtors never made any
payment towards the total outstanding amount or towards the separate invoices
raised by the operational creditor.
g. That, however, the operational creditor continuously kept reminding the
operational debtor about the outstanding amount and sent the account status to the
operational debtor on many occasions but the Operational debtor did not respond
to any of the reminders and chose to remain silent for ulterior motive.
h. That it is reiterated for the sake of clarity, transparency and for better and easy
understanding of the amount claimed herein that every time a bill became due, the
Operational Creditor charged an interest at the rate of 12% on the same. And
further, every time the two or more bills became pending, the total bill was
accumulated into one and they were treated as outstanding amount due from the
operational debtor and an interest of 12% charged on the total amount from the
date when all the pending bills till that date were accumulated into one and this
cycle kept continued till the time last bill amounting to Rs. 1,34,802/- (INR one
lakh thirty four thousand eight hundred and two only)was raised on 01.05.2015.
thereafter, all the 56 bills, along with the interest till the date last bill fell due
were accumulated into one and interest is charged on the total amount.
i. Thus the total debt including interest at the rate of. 12% p.a amounts to Rs.
1,86,02,887 (Rupees One Crore eighty six lakh two thousand eight hundred eighty
seven only)
2.1.3DATE FROM WHICH THE DEBT FELL DUE
The date of execution of the agreement i.e. 03.09.2013
2.2.1AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AND THE DATE ON WHICH
THE DEFAULT OCCURRED
The outstanding amounts to Rs. 1,86,02,887 (Rupees One Crore eighty six lakh
two thousand eight hundred eighty seven only) along with future interest at the
rate of 12% till the full and final payment of the outstanding amount. That the
default occurred on 03.09.2013 when the first bill became pending and
subsequently occurred every time when the invoices raised by the Operational
Creditor were not paid and became pending. That the default still prevails as the
outstanding is yet not cleared.
2.3.1PARTICULARS OF THE SECURITY HELD, THE DATE OF ITS
CREATION, ITS ESTIMATED VALUE AS PER THE CREDITOR
N/A
2.4.1DETAILS OF RETENTION OF TITLE ARRANGEMENTS IN RESPECT OF
GOODS TO WHICH THE OPERATIONAL DEBTOR REFERS
N/A
2.5.1RECORD OF DEFAULT WITH THE INFORMATION UTILIITY
N/A
2.6.1PROVISION OF LAW, CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT UNDER
WHICH DEBT HAS BECOME DUE
As per the provisions of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 governing the contract
between the parties.
2.7.1LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION IN
ORDER TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF OPERATIONAL DEBT AND
THE AMOUNT IN DEFAULT
a. Copies of the purchase orders issued by Operational Debtor in favor of the
Operational Creditor.
b. Copies of invoices raised by the Operational Creditor to Operational Debtor
towards the various purchase orders.
c. Copies of the email communications between the Parties
d. Statement of account maintained by the operational creditor.
3. If you dispute the existence or amount of unpaid operational debt (in default) please
provide the undersigned, within ten days of the receipt of this letter, of the pendency
of the suit or arbitration proceedings in relation to such dispute filed before the receipt
of this letter/notice.
4. If you believe that the debt has been repaid before the receipt of this letter, please
demonstrate such repayment by sending to us, within ten days of receipt of this letter,
the following:-
(a) An attested copy of the record of the electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from
the bank account of the corporate debtor: or
(b) An attested copy of any record that Mrs. Ritu Yadav has received the payment.
5. The undersigned, hereby, attaches a certificate from an information utility confirming
that no record of a dispute raised in relation to the relevant operational debt has been
filed by any person at any information utility.
6. The undersigned request you to unconditionally repay the unpaid operational debt (in
default) amounting Rs. 1,86,02,887 (Rupees One Crore eighty six lakh two thousand
eight hundred eighty seven only) along with future interest at the rate of 12% till the
date of full and final payment in full within ten days from the date of receipt of this
letter failing which we shall initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process in
respect of M/s Vipul Limited.
This is for your information, record and necessary action.
Yours sincerely,
Utkarsh Tripathi
For
ANAND K. MISHRA
Advocate for the Operational Creditor
ANNEXTURE- F
To, Dated: 28.07.2017
The Station House Officer (SHO)

Police Station-Neb Sarai,
New Delhi-1100
lll
SUBJECT: Complaint against Mr. Pravin M Dhaware (Junior Engineer, Building
Department, South Delhi Municipal Corporation) & Ms. T.C.A Kalyani (Resident of
House No. 40, First Floor, Anupam Apartment, Saiddullajab, Neb Sarai, New Delhi-
110068) under sections 166, 166A, 120B, 173, 177, 182, 426, 441, 442, 503 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860.
I, the undersigned am Resident of House No. 38, Ground Floor, Anupam Apartment,
Saiddullajab, Neb Sarai, New Delhi-110068. The said house was allotted to my father in law
Late Sh. Padam Prakash Mittal and we have been living at the property since then.
Furthermore, after the demise of my father in law, the said house devolved upon my husband
namely Sh. Pradeep Mittal and we have been living in the house peacefully.
On 25th July 2017, some unknown persons, claiming them to be employees of Building
Department, South Delhi Municipal Corporation visited my house along with some Police
persons. They visited my house at 6.00 p.m. in the evening, while my husband and I were
away for our respective works and my minor daughter, namely Muskan Mittal, was alone at
home.
My Daughter opened the door and asked them about their purpose of visit, whereby the
visitors introduced themselves as the employees of the Building Department, SDMC and
informed her that they were there to cut (remove) the illegal grill put (erected) on the roof.
Thereby, she informed them that no one was at home and requested to come later on when
the parents are at home. However, they did not heed any attention to her repeated requests
and forcefully entered my house. My minor daughter, being afraid of such an adamant
behavior of the said person got very scared and called me and informed about the situation. I,
immediately, setting aside everything, left for home. It is to be noted that I direly feared for
my daughter’s safety and security as she was all alone and there was no one to assist her and I
was also not sure whether the people visiting my home were really SDMC employee or
illegal elements. While, on the way to home, I called on my daughter’s Mobile No. and tried
to talk to one of the persons, whereby the person I talked to, told me that they were from
building department and came to remove the grill put on the roof, which I vehemently
opposed as I was never intimated regarding the same nor any show cause notice was issued to
me, but the person over phone did not listen to anything and said that order was already
passed and they were there to comply the order.
Furthermore, I also informed him that the grill was put only to restrain the miscreants from
entering my house and was temporary in nature and was in no manner causing difficulty to
anyone but the person on phone was not ready to listen to anything and adamant to remove
the grill without any reasonable justification. However, when I reached home, all the persons
were gone and my daughter informed me that they were saying to come back next day i.e.
27.07.2017.
It is pertinent to mention that owner of House No. 40, namely Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan, illegally
tried to open a window and a door on my roof top which I opposed and lodged a complaint to
Municipal Corporation and the police but failed to seek any relief at their end, thereby I
moved to Court and instituted a civil suit bearing no. 235 of 2015 seeking a permanent
injunction against the owner of House No. 40 (Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan), whereby the Ld Court
considering the facts and circumstances of the dispute vide dated 18.08.2015 passed an
interim order in my favor and stayed the illegal construction. That after passing of the said
order, the construction was stopped, but the door was still open causing a severe threat to our
privacy and life. Therefore, having in mind the said order of the Ld. Court I put a temporary
iron grill to safeguard my family from any threat during the pendency of the suit. It is to be
noticed that once the final order is passed, we shall abide by it and take the action
accordingly. It is also to be noticed that Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan has preferred an appeal
(bearing No.412 of 2017) against the order dated 01.02.2017 of the Ld. Civil Court, whereby
the Ld. Court dismissed the application preferred by Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan, under order 7 rule
11 for rejection of the suit, the same is pending adjudication and listed on 01.02.2018. Mr.
T.C.A Srinivasan has also filed a writ petition bearing no. WP (C) 6226 OF 2016, wherein
South Delhi Municipal Corporation is Respondent No.1 and the same is listed on 01.09.2017.
It is to be noticed that next day i.e. 26.07.2017, despite being High Court date in the above-
mentioned appeal, I chose to stay at home as I was worried about the security of my minor
daughter and the house. I waited the whole day but no one came. On next day also I stayed
home, leaving all my professional commitment aside, and waited for the said person but he
again did not come.
On 28.07.2017 at …/… in the evening, while my maid went upstairs, she heard noise on the
roof and when open the door she saw at least 10 to 15 persons on the roof cutting the grill.
She immediately ran down stairs and informed me and my husband about the situation. We
both immediately went to upstairs and noticed that the unknown persons entered our roof
from the illegal door which has been illegally constructed by Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan, and were
using an electric gas cutter to cut the grill. I was shocked to notice that electricity to the gas
cutter was supplying from Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan house. I immediately tried to stop the
unknown persons from removing the grill and asked them to show their identity card. One of
the unknown persons introduced himself as junior engineer from Building Department, South
Delhi Municipal Corporation and told that he had the order to remove the grill, but when I
asked him to show the order he started misbehaving with me and my husband and said that he
was not required to show us any order or give any justification and told the other persons to
continue the work. Further, when I asked him to confirm his identity he bluntly denied on the
basis that he already informed us his identity and there was no point in showing his identity
Card. Shocked and surprised by such and adamant behavior, I called my lawyer and asked the
person calling himself Junior Engineer to talk to him but he did not listen to him also, so I
requested my lawyer to come to my house and meet the person claiming himself to be Junior
Engineer in person and enquire the real situation. In between I also dialed 100 but the police
refused to help on the ground that they could not stop the Junior Engineer as it was
departmental proceeding and they were not suppose to stop it.
After some time, when my lawyer came and asked the person claiming himself to Junior
Engineer to show his identity card, the person showed his office identity card, whereby I got
to know that his name was Mr. Pravin M Dhaware and posted as a junior engineer ( civil).
Further, when my lawyer asked him to show the order for demolition (grill) of the grill, he
failed to show any order and gave the same reply as given to me earlier that he was not bound
to show the order to any one and if there was none he was competent to take action against
the illegal construction, whereby my lawyer tried to inform him that the grill was only put for
the safety of the family as family living in the house contains only three members( as
mentioned earlier) and both the parents were working, hence the grill was put only to avoid
any contingency in their absence, but Mr. Pravin M Dhaware did not listen to him and kept
cutting the grill. My lawyer also told him that even if the grill was illegal, Mr. Pravin M
Dhaware was supposed to act as per the provisions enshrined in the Delhi Municipal
Corporation, which clearly prohibits the Department from taking any action without issuing
the show-cause notice (Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act) to which Mr.
Pravin M Dhaware had no answer. Mr. Pravin M Dhaware, even after failing to justify his
illegal deeds, did not stop the cutting of the grills and dared my advocate to challenge his acts
in Court. My advocate also informed the constables present at the spot (to provide protection
to the J.E) that the act of Mr. Pravin M Dhaware was illegal as he acting in sheer violation of
the provisions enshrined in the concerned act but the constables said that they were following
the orders to assist Mr. Pravin M Dhaware.
Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that Mr. Pravin M Dhaware has acted in sheer
violation of the law. He has deliberately failed to issue any show cause notice and without
giving us any opportunity to put forth my justification for putting the grill on my roof as he
was well aware that in that case, he was not able to cut the grill as it would have made an
official record and had restrained him acting illegally. He has further failed to show any
order, whereby he was authorized to cut (remove) the grill.
It is pertinent to mention that Mr. Pravin M Dhaware has acted at the behest of T.C.A
Kalyani who is Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan and is an IAS officer. She, mis-using her stature and
rapport, has induced Mr. Pravin M Dhaware to take such an illegal action. It is to be noticed
that T.C.A Kalyani is holding the power of attorney of Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan and
representing him in all the above-said cases. She has threatened me to face the dire
consequences to face dire consequences. Moreover, she herself was not present at the spot but
her office staff was present during the whole incident, even her car was found to be parked
outside of the apartment. The whole incident is recorded in the CC Tv. Camera and the
recording has been saved as evidence, any time the same is required shall be furnished to you.
I say that Mr. Pravin M Dhaware and Ms.T.C.A Kalyani has connived together and acted
illegally misusing their official powers and cut the grill without any due process of law. Mr.
Pravin M Dhaware bothered to come at my door seek explanation or inform me about the
actions that he was going to cut the grill. He entered the roof through the illegal door
constructed by Mr. T.C.A Srinivasan and got the electric supply from his home only. He cut
the grill on the basis that the same was illegal but did not take any action against the illegal
door as the sole motive of his visit and cutting the grill was to allow Ms.T.C.A Kalyani to
access the roof. I do not seek negative equality but only due process of law. If the grill was
illegal, I should have been issued a statutory notice and if there was any order against me, I
must have been given access it. Such an illegal action has caused me a severe legal injury and
dented my faith in rule of law. If the people who are entrusted with such a heavy
responsibility to act in welfare of the public will start misusing their power for their personal
gain and illicit means, no one will believe in law and order.
In the interest of justice, it has been most humbly prayed to accept the present complaint and
initiate an investigation against Mr. Pravin M Dhaware and lodge an FIR accordingly.
This is for your information record and necessary action.
Yours Sincerely
Mrs. Rinky Mittal

ANNEXURE- G
Ref. No. MnP/012/2017-18 Dated: 08.09.2017
To,
South Delhi Municipal Corporation

(Through its Commissioner)
Office at: 25th Floor,
Dr. SPM Civic Centre,
JLN Marg, New Delhi-110002
SUB.: STATUTORY NOTICE(WITHOUT PREJUDICE) UNDER SECTION 80 OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
Our client: Laqshya Media Private Limited

Through Mr. Sudhir Kumar (AGM)
Branch Office: A-36, 2nd floor, sector-4, Noida, U.P-201301
Registered office: Laqshya House, Near Rameshwar Temple, Saraswati Baug, Society
Road, Jageshwari (E), Mumbai-400060
Dear Sir,
We, under instructions and for and on behalf of our client named above, serve you, the
above-named addressee, with this legal notice without any prejudice to such rights, claims,
contentions, submissions, remedies, etc. as our client may have, might have or have had at
any point of time and submit as under: -
1. That our client M/s Laqshya Media Private Limited is a company incorporated under
the Companies Act 1956 and carries out the business of outdoor advertising all over
India, not only this, it is the only Indian outdoor advertising company which has
surfaced on the International Market and writing history every day.
2. You, the addressee, are a Municipal Corporation having jurisdiction over definite
areas in the National Capital Territory of Delhi known as South Delhi for carrying on
the responsibilities imposed upon it by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957
(66 of 1957) [hereinafter referred to as the “DMC Act”] for the civic amenities etc.
3. That on 05.05.2017, you the addressee, abusing the administrative power vested in
you, demolished and uprooted, 10 FSUs and three police booths, installed by our
client at August Kranti Marg, Delhi arbitrarily without any prior notice or reasonable
explanation for doing so. Not only this, when the representative of our client reached
the spot and asked for the reason from you behind such sudden actions; your law-
defying officers carrying out the demolition failed to show any documentary proof to
justify their action and said that they were only discharging their duties and following
your orders though they failed to show any order from the Commissioner.
4. That it is pertinent to mention that you; the addressee, are well aware of the fact that
our client has been allotted a the right through tender floated by the Delhi Tourism
And Transportation Development Corporation Limited for development and
maintenance of the street furniture on the key roads in the vicinity of the
commonwealth games venues in Delhi, which our client has been duly carrying out,
since the time of allotment of the said tender, but you; the addressee, ignoring all the
facts, without any reasonable explanation, have not only demolished the above-
mentioned installments made by our client but also took away the debris.
5. The detail of the said tender are hereinbelow:

i. That the Public Works Department, Government of National Territory of
Delhi (PWD) taking up a drive for beautification of the Roads by way of
streetscaping, resurfacing the roads, street lighting, among others in
association with New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC), and Municipal
Corporation of Delhi invited Expressions of Interest (EOI) with submission
date as June 1, 2009 from interested parties for development and maintenance
of the street furniture on key roads in the vicinity of the CommonwealthGames
venues in Delhi whereby NDMC shortlisted the certain Applicants
ii. The intent of the project was to develop temporary/semi-permanent street
furniture items such as Traffic/Police Booths, vending Kiosks, public toilets,
tree guards, Dust Bins, Information panel, benches, and free-standing panels,
auto prepaid booth ( street furniture) on identified PWD Roads in the vicinity
of the Commonwealth venues
for a period of 7 ( seven) years on BOT basis in accordance with terms and
conditions provided in the bid document
iii. PWD entrusted the responsibility with Delhi Tourism And Transportation
Development Corporation Ltd. for issuing the Bid Document to the applicants
shortlisted by NDMC as a part of the above-said EOI process for the project
and to enter into a Concession Agreement with the selected bidder(s) for and
on behalf of PWD.
iv. That the Delhi Tourism And Transportation Development Corporation Ltd.,
considering all the proposals, on technical and financial grounds, on
18.05.2010 awarded the said tender in favor of our client, and since then our
client has been carrying out the tender diligently and making the payments
towards the tender on time.
6. It is pertinent to mention that vide your letter(No. CO(Advtt.)/2011/D-1005056-1)
dated05.08.2011 you, the addressee, asked our client to identify its displays and also
called upon to submit details of the street furniture installed by it at which the displays
were putting up by our client in terms of the contract allotted to it by DTTDC along
with a copy of the agreement/MOU executed between DTTDC and our client.
7. That on 10.08.2011our client replied to the said letter and also sent a copy of the letter
of award, copy of agreement, and list of media along with the letter for perusal of you;
the addressee, which clearly establish that you were well aware of the status of the
public furniture which was demolished at your behest.
8. That you; the addressee, despite being one of the parties during the inviting of the said
tender, have always shown least regard/respect towards the tender
and have always acted in a colorable manner and on various occasions have
interfered with our client’s right to run its business peacefully, which is visible from
the fact that despite our client’s reply dated 10.08.2011 to your letter dated
05.08.2011, you; the addressee dismantled it’s information panel opposite, without
any prior notice or reasonable ground, whereby our client was constraint to lodge a
complaint against you; the addressee but also had to approachDelhi Tourism And
Transportation Development Corporation Limited, thereby a meeting was taken by
the Chief Secretary, Delhi on 19.12.2011, whereby the Chief Secretary tried to resolve
the issue between you; the addressee and DTTDC and further decided that 50% share
of advertisement revenue shall be shared by the DTTDC for advertisement on MCD
roads while for the other roads, 25% shall be given to MCD and the percentage of
share shall be on actual receipts of revenue.
9. That you; the addressee, on the one hand, share the advertisement revenue
accumulated on Our client’s contract, on the hand harass it unnecessarily by
demolishing it’s public furniture and causing it monetary loss.
10. That on 18.09.2015 again, our client’s the information panel (public furniture)
situated at August Kranti Marg was demolished by your employees at your behest
without showing any legal ground or prior intimation. They also took away scrap
material of the information panel. Our client, like always again lodged a Police
complaint dated 18.09.2015 and also informed DTTDC vide letter dated 21.09.2015.
11. That it is depressing that being a government instrumentality, you the addressee are
under legal obligation to work for the welfare of the public, yet you are acting in
contrast and deliberately causing serious monetary
losses to our client. Harassment of our client at your hands has become a never ending
process and despite police complaint on various occasions, you; the addressee and
your law defying officers are not deterred at all but acting in a vendetta.
12. That on 05.05.2017, your official reached to August Kranti Marg, and demolished 10
FSUs and 3 Police Booths and also damaged both the Pus there. That, on receiving
the information from the public utility attendants, the representative of our client
reached the spot and tried to ask the reason for such a sudden action from your
officials, they failed to give any valid explanation and also failed to show any order
for demolishing the sites of our client.
13. That aggrieved by such an illegal action by you the; addressee, our client approached
Mr. Prem Shankar Jha (Add. D.C) to clarify the situation, but he also failed to justify
the action taken at his behest and also failed to give any assurance to Our Client. That
our client on 08.05.2017 wrote a letter DTTDC and informed about the illegal act of
you; the addressee.
14. That you the; addressee have been continuously harassing our client and causing
severe monetary, commercial and goodwill loss. That due to the demolition carried
out on 05.05.2017 our client has suffered a loss of 25 lacs which was invested in the
building of the said units. It is also suffering losses on daily basis as in absence of the
said units it is not able to display commercial advertisement and you the addressee are
solely responsible for compensating the losses suffered by our client.
15. Thus you, the addressee are liable to compensate our client towards the damage done
due to your illegal and law-defying act and liable to pay our
client a sum of 25,00,000/- ( INR twenty five lakhs only) to re-erect the said units and
Rs 30,00,000/- ( INR thirty lakhs only) towards the business, goodwill and profit loss
suffered by our client on daily basis from 05.05.2017 till the date of final payment.
You are also liable to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- towards the cost of this statutory
notice. Thus, in totality, you are liable to pay our client a sum of Rs. 55,07,500/- (INR
fifty five lakhs seven thousand five hundred only)
16. That in the case of your failure to pay the damages ( as categorically mentioned in the
preceding paragraph) and the cost of the present legal notice, within 2 months from
the receipt of this legal notice, we have clear instructions from our client to take
appropriate legal action against you; the addressee.
This is for your information, record and necessary action
Your’s sincerely
Utkarsh Tripathi
(Advocate)

INTERNSHIP DIARY Gaurav

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INTERNSHIP DIARY Gaurav

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INTERNSHIP DIARY

UNDER THE GUIDANCE & SUPERVISION OF

DURATION – 1st July 2017 to 31st July 2017

In the Chambers of Mr. Anand K. Mishra, Advocate-on-

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Approving Authority: Prepared By:

Office of Mr. Anand K. Mishra Gaurav Singh

Advocate-on-Record LL.B (G) Sem- Vth

Supreme Court of India LC-1,FACULTY OF LAW

Date: July 1, 2017

Date: July 3, 2017

Date: July 4, 2017

Date: July 5, 2017

Date: July 6, 2017

Date: July 7, 2017

Date: July 9, 2017

Date: July 10, 2017

Date: July 11, 2017

Date: July 12, 2017

Date: July 13, 2017

Date: July 14, 2017

Date: July 15, 2017

Date: July 17, 2017

Date: July 18, 2017

Date: July 19, 2017

Date: July 20, 2017

Date: July 21, 2017

Date: July 22, 2017

Date: July 24, 2017

Date: July 25, 2017

Date: July 26, 2017

Date: July 27, 2017

Date: July 28, 2017

Date: July 29, 2017

Date: July 31,2017

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE SAKET COURTS,

CIVIL SUIT NO OF 2017

(UNDER ORDER XXXII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908)

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S HIMALAYAN FLORA AND AROMA PVT LTD …PLAINTIFF

M/S BROAD VIEW MEDIA COM PVT LTD. …DEFENDANT

RECOVERY OF RS 5,63,226/- (INR FIVE LAKH SIXTY THREE THOUSAND TWO

HUNDRED TWENTY SIX ONLY) AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WITH PENDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

Court to seek Justice.

allotted by Municipal Corporations or any other government body or state

instrumentality or private persons.

4. That the plaintiff has authorized, Mr……………………., vide

…………,……………………, to file the present suit against the Defendant and to

5. That the Defendant, Broadview Mediacom Pvt. Ltd. is a media communication

for the Defendant.

agreement whereby the plaintiff was to display advertisement on behalf of the

Bill no. Bill date Bill amount Order details

1887 22/08/2013 83,333-00 69/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14

1915 05/10/2013 60,000-00 80/SIGNAGE/AD/13-14

1948 30/11/2013 75,000-00 Mail Confirmation

1949 30/11/2013 70,000-00 Mail Confirmation

1950 30/11/2013 70,000-00 Mail Confirmation

1983 13/01/2014 100,000-00 145/SIGNAGE/AD/13-14

1984 13/01/2014 100,000-00 144/SIGNAGE/GQ/13-14

1985 13/01/2014 70,000-00 141/SIGNAGE/VOGUE/13-14

2118 04/08/2014 100,000-00 39/SINGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15

2131 05/08/2014 100,000-00 47/SIGNAGE/VOUGE/14-15