1. Roles and ResponsibilitiesDuring the term of internship the work assigned to me were related to drafting, research work, preparing of case synopsis, list of dates and maintaining casefiles. 1.1 Assisted in Clerical worka. Proof Reading or vetting of Memorandum of Understanding : The memorandum was drafted between Shriram Fertilizer Company and Aries Argo. Ltd for consortium bid where the Shriram fertilizer will be the lead bidder in the process. And the award of project by the client shall be executed by the parties jointly. In the event of award of project by the client in such consortium bid both the parties has agreed to enter into a Consortium Agreement for the joint execution of the project. The terms of MOU were that the expenditure shall be jointly incurred by both the parties in executing of the project and the agreement shall contain the provision of repayment of any borrowing by the consortium and the both the parties shall jointly and severally bound towards the client for obligations of the project. The proof reading of MOU is the careful examination the documents by going through the clauses in order to prevent any kind of ambiguity in the document that may give rise to a dispute among parties; such as typographical error, clarity in scope and object clause, definition clause, Rights and obligation clause, Dispute Resolution and Jurisdiction clauses and etc. b. Drafting of Legal Notice: I have drafted a legal notice related to dishonor of cheque under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for recovery of debt Rs. 50,00,000/- towards the purchase of Rolling Grinder. The addressee’s cheque was dishonored by his banker on the grounds of insufficiency of funds. In the notice the addressee is requested the settle the debt amount along with interest at 24% per annum, within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. And if he fails to do so then within 30 days from the date when he ought to pay the amount a complaint under section 142 read with section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 shall be initiated.c. Preparing of Case Synopsis: Himadri Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, the case was with respect to a writ petition filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Himadri Pvt. Ltd. against the Union of India ( Respondent No. 1), Ministry of Heavy Industry (Respondent No. 2) and Tungabhadra Steel Products Limited ( Respondent No.3) by invoking the civil writ jurisdiction of the High Court praying for issuing of Writ of mandamus against the Respondents. Petitioner is engaged in sale of micro industry disinfectant fluids, phenyl and Naphthalene balls. Respondent no. 3 issued a tender for purchase of supplies and petitioner was awarded to supply pure white naphthalene balls. For supply of Naphthalene balls an inspection was called and attended by an officer deputed by Respondent no. 1 to the premises of petitioner’s factory. Officer deputed by R-1 refused to account the sample being supplied to him by the petitioner as it was not pure white but off white and brownies in colour and petitioner had to bear the cost of visit of the officer. Due to refusal another inspection was called and sample was collected on 15/05/2017 by an officer of R1. Sample got tested and copy of test report was made available to the petitioner. The supply was rejected as the sample doesn’t meet the requirement. Petitioner during the same period submitted the same sample to government approved lab in Panchkula , Haryana according to which the sample meets the requirement of ISI 39 of 1974. Petitioner called for another inspection and condition imposed by R1 were to adopt double sampling test and such samples will be send to two independent labs. Upon passing of the material by both the labs, such sample will be considered as passed and chargers for testing such samples shall be borne by petitioner. When representative of R1 came for inspection, it was refused by the petitioner to supply sample as representative of R1 had delayed the inspection for 3rd time and chargers demanded were too high. According to Bureau of Indian Standard maximum amount of charges for Naphthalene balls can be for Grade 1 if Rs, 1087 and for grade 2 of Naphthalene balls is Rs. 1701.75. Also R1 had admitted the delay in attending call for inspection and demand for depositing chargers for testing the samples. R1 laid down condition of double sampling. Since R1and R3 insisted on double sampling this means that the present stock available with petitioner is not fit for examination and he is required to submit a fresh stock, which is not financially viable for petitioner. As the contract for supply of Naphthalene balls is only for value of Rs 214000/- .Hence the petitioner filed a writ of Mandamus on the grounds the demand of the R-1 and R-3 for fresh supply of material for the purpose of testing in unjustifiable as the sample is fit to undergo double sampling test and the demand for conducting test report was Rs 16000 whereas the sum for testing according to Bureau of Indian standard is much less than Rs 16000. Therefore the Hon,ble court was prayed to direct R-1 to accept the present stock as the sample for the laboratory test. Also due to delay in inspection by the officer deputed by R-1, R-3 has imposed the Penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 for delay in supply of material on petitioner which R-1 is liable to pay. And the petitioner has claimed the compensation of Rs 10 lacs from the respondent towards the cost of inspection incurred by him and the delay caused on the part of R-1. d. Drafting of Settlement Agreement in an Arbitral Proceedings: In the pending arbitral proceedings Siva Prasad Transport Company vs. IRCTC, in which IRCTC has awarded a tender for transportation of food supplies from its processing units to the Udaipur Railway station from year 2015 to 2018 for their distribution in trains. As per clause 12.8 of the tender document the contract shall be terminated by the IRCTC upon service of a show cause notice if there is any stoppage of service on the part of opposite party without any reasonable cause, also the opposite party shall be liable to pay compensation for the loss incurred by IRCTC. On 11th September 2016, Siva Prasad transport company, truck drivers who were engaged in the transportation of the supplies refuse to take the food supplies from the proceeding units to the Udaipur Railway station without any reasonable cause. Due to their refusal IRCTC suffered a loss of Rs. 50,00,000 on that day and due to discontinuity of transport services by the opposite party IRCTC has to immediately engage another transporter on exorbitant consideration. Therefore IRCTC has terminated the contract with Siva Prasad by serving him a prior show cause notice to which Siva Prasad trading company failed to give a justifiable reason for failure to transport food supplies and claimed Rs. 75,00,000 for the default. Siva Prasad trading company being aggrieved from the decision of IRCTC invoked Arbitration on 2nd December 2016. During my term of internship in this case the parties through mutual consent has agreed to enter into settlement deed under section 30 read with section 74 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitrator initiated the proceedings of mediation for the purpose of settlement between the parties in which the arbitrator acted as the mediator. The procedure for settlement deed was that the terms of settlement is negotiated between the parties then the mediator drafts the terms and then submit to the parties for their observation. After receiving observation of the parties the mediator may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement in light of such observations. If the parties reach agreement on a settlement a written settlement agreement is draw up and signed by parties, upon signing the agreement it shall become final and binding. The terms of settlement agreement in the present case were:1. That the settlee agree to reduce the amount claimed for compensation to Rs. 49,50,000 for the loss suffered to due discontinuity of the service. 2. That by way this settlement deed IRCTC (settlee) has agreed to cancel the termination of tender executed with Siva Prasad Transport Company (settlor) on the grounds provided that the settlor pays 50% of the aforementioned amount to settlee within 15 days from the date of execution of settlement deed and the remain amount claimed has to paid in equal installment within 24 months.3. That the settlee agrees to pay the loss of income suffered by the employees of settlor due to the termination of the contract.4. That the settlee before the expiry of contract with settlor shall give an opportunity for its renewal based upon the satisfactory services provided by the settlor.e. Drafted an Application under order XV A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.The suit was instituted for possession, recovery of arrears of rent for a property which was leased to defendant in year 2010. The amount of recovery was of Rs. 2,34,500/- with the interest of 18% p.a. I have assisted my recruiter in drafting an application under order 15A of CPC for paying the use and occupancy chargers and mense profit during the pendency of the suit by the defendant. Order 15 A of CPC is a state amendment and is applicable to any leased property in the jurisdiction of Delhi. This order states that in any suit by a lessor against lessee with or without arrears of rent and mense profit from him, the defendant has to deposit the amount of rent to the court. It shall continue to deposit the amount till the decision of the suit. In event of default of depositing the rent in the court the court may strike off the defence. But before passing the order for striking off the defence, the court shall serve the notice to the defendant to show cause as to why his defence should not be struck off and the court shall consider the cause given by the defendant. Further the amount deposit under this rule shall be paid to the plaintiff or lessor and the receipt of such amount shall not have the effect of prejudicing the claim of the plaintiff and it shall not mean that the suit of eviction of the tenant has been waived. 2. Learning about Laws and their applications during InternshipThe major source of learning about laws and their application during the internship was through the research work on the legal questions assigned to me by my recruiter. These legal questions were pertaining to the cases in which the recruiter was appointed as counsel. 2.1 Research on provision of recalling witnesses in Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958In Vijay Khurana vs. Swati Mohan Agarwal, E. No. 415/2014 the plaintiff has leased out his property in Pitampura, New Delhi for commercial purposes to the defendant on 18/5/2011, the defendant defaulted the payment of rent from 12/11/2013. On 7/2/2014 the landlord gave a two months notice to defendant under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, but despite the notice defendant failed to pay the arrears of Rent. Hence the application for eviction of tenant has filed by plaintiff under section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The defendant alleged that she has been suffering huge losses at her business and is not able to pay the rent amount, therefore her prayer to the hon’ble court was to allow a reasonable time period within which she would pay the rent and reject the application of eviction. The plaintiff Vijay Khurana want to lead additional evidence by adducing the statement of Accounts of the defendant to show that she had sufficient amount/ funds to repay the arrears of rent and her plea is an attempt to delay the proceedings. Hence the question raised here was “What is the provision for recalling of witnesses under a suit of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958?” The Act prevents exploitation of tenancy by landlords and protects the interest of both parties and regulates fixing of rents and eviction of tenants. The Act is a code within itself and in absence of any provisions in the Act the provision under CPC is followed. In 2005 through an amendment the provision of recalling of witnesses was repealed. So in case of KK Velusamy vs. Palanisamy the Supreme Court held that “there is no specific provisions in the code which enables parties to reopen the evidence or recall any witness for examination or cross examination but court can do so under section 151 of CPC, power under S. 151 can be exercised to deal with any particular procedural aspect which is not provided expressly or impliedly in CPC, if ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of court. The court in appropriate cases can exercise its discretion to permit reopening of evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by parties is concluded and arguments have commenced or even when arguments have concluded.” 2.2 Procedure for Issue of License under The Delhi Shops & Establishment Act, 1954I have researched on the procedure for procuring license for establishing a Bakery Shop in Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Also I have researched about the penalties imposed in case of breach of terms of license. Under section 5 the application for of issue of license has to be filed within 90 days from the date when the establishment commences its work, a statement has to be sent to Chief Inspector, who is appointed by the state government according to the State’s Factory Rules. The statement contains following detailsa. name of the employer or managerb. the address of the establishmentc. the name of the establishment, d. its category that whether it is residential hotel, restaurant, shopping complex or etc,e. the number of employees in the establishment. On receipt of the statement, the Chief Inspector shall conduct any inquiry with respect to the correctness of the statement for the purpose of inquiry he can enter the premises of establishment during reasonable working hours and has power to order the manager for production of any document related to the establishment. And if he is satisfied by the documents the chief Inspector shall register the establishment and issue a registration certificate/ License to the occupier for a specific time. Such certificate shall be renewed after the expiry period. If the occupier closes down his establishment then within 15 days from the date of such closure he has to intimate the chief Inspector in writing. “The chief Inspector if satisfied by the information received with respect to the closure of the establishment shall remove its name from the register and will cancel certificate”. However if there is likelihood with respect to re start of establishment within the period of six months, it may not remove the name of establishment from the register.The Penalty for the disclosure of false information in the statement submitted of Chief Inspector is imprisonment for 3 months or a fine which is not less than 50 rupees and not more than 250 rupees or both.And under section 41 if the Chief Inspector is obstructed by the owner or occupier of the establishment from doing inspection with respect to compliance with terms of the license, he shall be punishable fine a fine which may extend to rupees fifty to rupees two hundred and fifty. Moreover beside these penalties the license of the owner is also cancelled. The procedure for prosecution against the licensee can only be initiated with prior permission of Chief Inspector. The cognizance of the above mentioned offences are taken by the First Class Magistrate and the trial is conducted through Summary Procedure under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.