Internship Diary – Winter Break (Dec-2018)

Tamil Nadu National Law School, Tiruchirappalli

Under the guidance of Mr.V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,

Advocate at Supreme Court of India,
For the duration 2/12/18 – 25/12/18

Submitted by
N.Bavithran
5rd Year, B.COM. LL. B (Hons.)
BC0140018
 TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

INTERNSHIP DIARY

Name: N.BAVITHRAN Reg. No: BC0140018

Date: 18/02/19

Year of study: V year

Internship type: SupremeCourt

Organization’s Name: V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, Advocate Supreme Court of India

Tel.:

Contact person in organization: 9842290385

Tel.: e-mail:

Period of Internship: 2/12/18 – 25/12/18

Internship Approved/Internship NOT Approved:

Internal supervisor’s signature:

Date:

External supervisor certificate submitted

Internship diary submitted

Date: 2nd -3rd December 2018

 I was introduced to the work of interns in the law office and was told about the types of
cases the office handles.
 I was taught how to do a research work on the cases using the books, journals at the office
library

Date: 4th-5th December 2018

I was directed to go to the Supreme Court and watch the proceedings on daily basis and
learn the process and procedure of a trial and to also given opportunity to see the major cases.

 Had a visit to various parts in the court, also the office where cases get registered and the
documents needed to be submitted for getting it done.

The case file on being presented in a counter is provided with a temporary number (if the
beta, stamp, and other court fee are being paid), after temporary numbering it is moved to
another desk for correction, this process of correction is a week-long process where if there
is correction the advocate is being and the file will be returned. Until there is no correction
the file will be returned and had to be resubmitted (unlike Supreme court, where new filing
is in a different place and the submission of the corrected copy will be in a different section,
in High court both the new and the corrected submission are in the same section. After
correction the file is being sent to another desk where the file is numbered and then the file
in the last desk is determined to which judge that particular matter shall be listed will be
decided.

Date: 6th December 2018

 Court proceedings till 4:30 case not heard upon

 I got the opportunity to see the argument son 18 MLA disqualification case
 Had to enquire the case statue and the date of next hearing in various courts, had to enquire
as to the status of the case, when it is being listed for the next hearing, what judge had
issued as an interim order if any.

Date: 7th December 2018

  Court visit: visited Court Hall no. 12. Where 2 judgments where been passed.
I. NRI divorce case.
II. Land ceiling
Listened arguments in both the case where in case of the first case the judge instructed as to
produce our client in the court trial live broadcasting. The second case was in regard to where the

judge ordered the presence of the accused and explanation for his absence, and that medical
condition may get relaxation in sentence but has to get punished for the deed done.

Date: 8th December 2018

 Miscellaneous days in supreme court so students are notallowed, even so had to verify case
status and next date of hearing, and the state of a reserved judgment
 I was advised to read about the law commission’s recommendation on euthanasia

1.We propose to provide that the doctor shall not withhold or withdraw treatment unless he has
obtained opinion of a body of three expert medical practitioners from a panel prepared by high
ranking Authority. We also propose another important caution, namely, that the decision to
withhold or withdraw must be based on guidelines issued by the Medical Council of India as to
the circumstances under which medical treatment in regard to the particular illness or disease,
could be withdrawn or withheld. In addition, it is proposed that, in the case of competent as well
as incompetent patients, a Register must be maintained by doctors who propose withholding or
withdrawing treatment. The decision as well as the decision-making process must be noted in the
Register. The Register to be maintained by the doctor must contain the reasons as to why the doctor
thinks the patient is competent or incompetent, as to why he thinks that the patient’s decision in
an informed decision or not, as to the view of the experts the doctor has consulted in the case of
incompetent patients and competent patients who have not taken an informed decision, what is in
their best interests, the name, sex, age etc. of the patient. He must keep the identity of the patient
and other particulars confidential. Once the above Register is duly maintained, the doctor must
inform the patient (if he is conscious), or his or her parents or relatives before withdrawing or
withholding medical treatment. If the above procedures are followed, the medical practitioner can
withhold or withdraw medical treatment to a terminally ill patient. Otherwise, he cannot withhold
or withdraw the treatment.
2. A patient who takes a decision for withdrawal or withholding medical treatment has to be
protected from prosecution for the offence of ‘attempt to commit suicide’ under sec. 309 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. This provision is by way of abundant caution because it is our view that
the very provisions are not attracted and the common law also says that a patient is entitled to
allow nature to take its own course and if he does so, he commits no offence. Likewise, the doctors
have to be protected if they are prosecuted for ‘abetment of suicide’ under sections 305, 306 of the
Penal Code, 1860 or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under sec. 299 read with sec.
304 of the Penal Code, 1860 when they take decisions to withhold or withdraw life support and in
the best interests of incompetent patients and also in the case of competent patients who have not
taken an informed decision. The hospital authorities should also get the protection. This provision
is also by way of abundant caution and in fact the doctors are not guilty of any of these offences
under the above sections read with sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code as of today. Their
action clearly falls under the exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. We are also of the view
that the doctors must be protected if civil and criminal actions are instituted against them. We,
therefore, propose that if the medical practitioner acts in accordance with the provisions of the Act
while withholding or withdrawing medical treatment, his action shall be deemed to be ‘lawful’.
3. We have therefore thought it fit to provide an enabling provision under which the patients,
parents, relatives, next friend or doctors or hospitals can move a Division Bench of the High Court
for a declaration that the proposed action of continuing or withholding or withdrawing medical
treatment be declared ‘lawful’ or ‘unlawful’. As time is essence, the High Court must decide such
cases at the earliest and within thirty days. Once the High Court gives a declaration that the action
of withholding or withdrawing medical treatment proposed by the doctors is ‘lawful’, it will be
binding in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings between same parties in relation to the same
patient. We made it clear that it is not necessary to move the High Court in every case. Where the
action to withhold or withdraw treatment is taken without resort to Court, it will be deemed
‘lawful’ if the provisions of the Act have been followed and it will be a good defense in subsequent
civil or criminal proceedings to rely on the provisions of the Act.
4. It is internationally recognized that the identity of the patient, doctors, hospitals, experts be kept
confidential. Hence, we have proposed that in the Court proceedings, these persons or bodies will
be described by letters drawn from the English alphabet and none, including the media, can
disclose or publish their names. Disclosure of identity is not permitted even after the case is
disposed of.
5. The Medical Council of India must prepare and publish Guidelines in respect of withholding or
withdrawing medical treatment. The said Council may consult other expert bodies in critical care
medicine and publish their guidelines in the Central Gazette or on the website of the Medical
Council of India

Date: 9th December 2018

Morning I made a visit on my advocate office,to help in case of false allegation was charged on
base on seven-year unknown so legally he considers to be death, if came back who will get the
property.

Date: 10th December 2018

 Miscellaneous days in supreme court. I spend my time to read-out the case status. What
are all possible way to solve the problems. I help my advocate on the base of case relate to
land accusation. Had to visit chambers to verify the sitting of the judges and when about
the case to be listed

Date: 11th December 2018 .

 Court visit attended the arguments of a senior member of the associates, for a
mismanagement of trust under TOP act
This was a case in regard to mismanagement of trust where the public money was misused,
was there where advanced arguments going in regard to providing of misuse of money,
where my senior hints by saying that an act should not be read with bare sections but has
to be read with the consideration as to why the act was established in the first. He further
goes on to submit various case laws on his behalf and pointed out the defaults in the
 Criminal report, no proper record on the trust money which were transfer from foreign
countries, the case was post to hear next month.

Date: 12th December 2018

 Court visit
 Listened to arguments of a divorce case
This was a divorce case where the parties where from wife from Mumbai and husband was
settled in German. here unlike ordinary divorce case, here the judge looked into why the
girl from Mumbai was not able to settle with her husband in German. Where the Judge
coats the life style in which the girl has been born Mumbai she doesn't have any permit to
go along with his husband, he goes on to say that the life style in German is so different
that any person moving away from India is not been able to accommodate to that particular
place life style, and that the girl here is of no different. The case was listed for later.

Date: 13th December 2018

 Court visit
 Case base on the person died in a police custody. Police stated that he was already a heart
patent, he consumed alcohol at the time of police got arrested. suddenly he had died in
police station.
This was a case where the police have arrested a person at mid night, when a arrest should
be done at midnight unless it was grave emergency and that the family of the accused has
to be given consideration, as banging at the nit 3 o clock at a house. Case was post for later.

Date: 14th December 2018

 Miscellaneous days in supreme court.

 Visited the chamber to made a detail on past case status , new update on the transgender
bill passed .

Date: 15th December 2018

 Had to verify various documents for a case in regard to partition, of a HUF property.
Property which was already gifted to some on Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937. if a
daughter also has a Right to Property before 1937.
 Then went to the saket court (south delhi district court) which is one of the six district
courts in delhi

Date: 17th December 2018

 Miscellaneous days in supreme court.

 I visited High Court of Delhi (Patiala house) regarding the AIADMK symbol case in which
the court ordered T.T.V.Dinakaran to appear before the court. And the illegal abortion of
baby in hospital Husband was filed a case against the wife and hospital,

Date: 18th December 2018

 Verifying documents for partition of an HUF

The verification for the HUF property was still going as the number of companies created
grows as the branch in the family grows and all the shares are eventually held by the
members of the family itself, it was more like each family holding a company to its name
managed by the head of the family, they were more like small HUF.

Date: 19th December 2018

 Had to check cause list for all the case for the cases has been posted for hearing after
vacation
 Since it was the last week of the court had to check when the cases have been posted for
the next hearing.

Date: 20th-22ndDecember 2018

ASSIGNMENT 1:

Similarities between Order and Decree

According to the 1908 Civil Procedure Code, there are various common elements between a decree
and an order although they differ on key aspects. Some of the main similarities are listed below.

Both decree and order are expressed by a judge – or a panel of judges – in a civil court;

Both are expressed in the context of a controversy (a suit) between two (or more) opposing parties;

 Both are formal decisions; and

 Both order and decree are adjudications.

What is the Difference between Order and Decree?

Despite few commonalities, order and decree are substantially different: the first is a judgement –
generally expressed on procedural matters – while the second is a final judgement that ascertains
the rights of the parties involved. Some of the primary differences between the two include:

1.The decree focuses on the legal rights of one of (or both) contesting parties whereas the order is
mainly concerned with procedural matters. When a judge expresses an order, he does so in order
to invite or refrain one of the parties involved from taking an action:

2. During a suit, there can be only one decree – although it can be preliminary or final – while
there can be multiple orders, which are always final;

3. A decree is the formal proclamation of the adjudication made by the judge or the court, which
ascertains the rights of the parties concerned and tend to contain conclusive determination of a
right. Conversely, an order is the legal announcement of the decision (or judgment) taken by the
court (or by the judge) with regard to the relationship of the parties within the context of legal
proceedings; andA decree is usually appealable while there is no second appeal against orders

Date: 23rd -24th December 2018

ASSIGNMENT 2:

MEANING OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

Special leave petition (SLP) means that an individual takes special permission to be heard in appeal
against any high court/tribunal verdict. Thus, it is not an appeal but a petition filed for an appeal.
So after an SLP is filed, the Supreme Court may hear the matter and if it deems fit, it may grant
the ‘leave’ and convert that petition into an ‘appeal’. SLP shall then become an Appeal and the
Court will hear the matter and pass a judgment.

1. It can be filed against any judgment or decree or order of any high court /tribunal in the territory
of India, or

2. It can be filed in case a high court refuses to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme
Court of India.

3. It can be filed against any judgment of a high court within 90 days from the date of judgment,
or

4. It can be filed within 60 days against the order of a high court refusing to grant the certificate of
fitness for appeal to Supreme Court.

WHO CAN FILE SLP

Any aggrieved party can file an SLP against the judgment or order of refusal of grant of certificate.

Through SLP, an aggrieved party can appeal to the Supreme Court against any judgement passed
by any lower court or tribunal. This leave is granted when the case involves a question of law.
Mere errors of fact, mis-appreciation of evidence or even findings of fact arrived at wrongly are
not grounds of appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is only concerned with
question of law i.e. if the law was correctly applied, whether the interpretation of law was in
accordance with the settled principles of law etc.

The aggrieved party or the petitioner filing SLP has to give a brief synopsis of the facts and issues
presented in the case along with a list of dates specifying the chronology of events pertinent to the
judgement. Along with this, the petitioner has to formulate questions of law to appeal against the
judgement. These questions should pertain to laws relevant to the general public as well.

Once registered and presented in the Supreme Court, the petitioner will get a hearing before the
Court. Subsequently, depending on the merits of the case, the Supreme Court will issue a notice to
the opposite parties who will then file a counter affidavit stating their views. It’s at this point that
the Supreme Court will decide whether to grant leave to the petitioner or not. If the Court grants
leave, the case is then converted into a civil appeal and will be argued afresh in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court can rescind or revoke the earlier judgement, modify it or allow it. The Court
can also send the case back to the relevant lower court for fresh adjudication in light of principles
laid down by it or on account of any issues missed out by the lower court.

Article 133–136 of the Constitution of India defines the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. Article 133 provides for civil appeals from orders of the High Court, Article 134 provides
for criminal appeals and Article 136 provides for special leave petition. If a case does not fall
within Article 133 or Article 134 then under Article 136 the Supreme Court may be moved and a
special permission may seek to grant leave to appeal.

DISCRETIONARY POWER

Appeal to Supreme Court is not a matter of right but it is matter of privilege which only the
Supreme Court will grant to any individual if there exists an important constitutional or legal issue
involved. Appeals are regulated by the Constitution of India and Supreme Court Rules,
2013.According to Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court’s judgement is
declared as law of the land and is binding on all courts in India

Date:25th December 2018:

It was the last day of my internship and received my internship certificate from the advocate
CASE:

The Vedanta Group company Sterlite has said it would move the Supreme Court to implement the
NGT order to reopen its copper plant in Tuticorin.

"The honorable Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, Friday issued notices on the matter and has
listed the same for hearing on maintainability on January 21, 2019. The honorable court has also
directed the Tamil Nadu state government to make its position clear by January 21, 2019 on
whether it proposes to file an appeal against NGT order of December 15, 2018," CEO of Sterlite
Copper P Ramnath said. "Sterlite Copper will move the Supreme Court to help implement the
NGT order in early January," he said in a statement. The Madras High Court had Friday ordered
status quo as existed before the National Green Tribunal set aside a Tamil Nadu government order
for closure of Sterlite's copper unit in Tuticorin.

The Madurai Bench had also restrained the Vedanta Group company from taking any steps to
reopen the unit.

The state government had on May 28 ordered the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to seal and
"permanently" close the mining group's copper plant following violent protests by locals over
pollution concerns. On December 15, the NGT had set aside the Tamil Nadu government order for
closure of the Sterlite copper plant at Tuticorin, which was at the center of massive protests over
alleged pollution, saying it was "non-sustainable" and "unjustified." At least 13 people were
killedand several injured-on May 22 when police had opened fire on a huge crowd of people
protesting against environment pollution being allegedly caused by the factory.The Supreme Court
today said the green court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Sterlite, the company owned by
the Vedanta Group, can approach the Madras High Court with its request for permission to reopen
the copper plant in Thoothukudi district, the top court said. A bench headed by Justice RF Nariman
said it is allowing Tamil Nadu's appeal against the green court order only on grounds of
maintainability

Case Comment: Kali (Deceased) vs Sellammal on 21 April, 2008

The case was from Madras High Court, the advocate was appearing for the same as appeal in the
supreme court wherein, the hearing was postponed. I was asked to write a brief on the case.
Arguments of the Plaintiff

The suit was one for declaration and permanent injunction.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that
the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's paternal grandmother Sellayee by way of a
sale deed dated 13.06.1913 and in her possession and enjoyment and as per law then in force, after
her demise, the suit property was inherited/acquired by her only son Muthu Gounder and Muthu
Gounder's father, KaruppaGounder while Muthu Gounder was a minor, was managing the suit
property, while so, he had executed the settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 in respect of the suit
property in favour of Muthu Gounder and his future wife Kuppayee and as per the said settlement
deed Muthu Gounder and Kuppayye are not entitled to individually encumber the suit property,
however entitled to create encumbrance jointly and as per law, as it is only Muthu Gounder who
had title to the suit property and hence the settlement deed executed by KaruppaGounder is invalid
and void and Kuppayee would not get any right in respect of the suit property by virtue of the
settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 and Muthu Gounder died on 30.01.1942 and the plaintiff is his
only son and the first defendant is his only daughter and accordingly, the suit property had been
inherited by the plaintiff as his son as per the law then in force and even assuming that the
settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 is valid, as per the same both Muthu Gounder and his wife
Kuppayee are jointly entitled to the suit property and after their demise, their legal heirs would be
entitled to the suit property and after the demise of Muthu Gounder, though Kuppayee would be
entitled to encumber the suit property independently, the suit property should be deemed to be
only the property belonging to Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee. Accordingly, Muthu Gounder had
half share and Kuppayee had the other half share in the suit property and Kuppayee had released
her share in favor of the plaintiff by way of a registered release deed dated 01.11.1993 and
accordingly, it is only the plaintiff who has been in the enjoyment of the suit property in entirety
by paying Kists, obtaining Patta and while so, the first defendant had without any right or interest
in the suit property had executed a sale deed in respect of her share in the suit property in favors
of her grandchildren namely, the defendants 2 to However, the said sale deed is invalid and not
binding upon the plaintiff and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the
suit for appropriate reliefs.
Arguments of the defendant

While the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law
or on facts. It is true that the suit property originally belonged to Sellayee and it is false to state
that after her demise, Muthu Gounder had acquired title to the suit property. Sellayee had two
daughters namely Veerammal and Pavalayee. Veerammal is the first defendant's mother-in-law
and Pavalayee is the wife of Ramasamy Gounder and Veerammal died 15 years ago and Pavalayee
died 10 years ago and as per the law then in force, it is only Veerammal and Pavalayee who as the
legal heirs of Sellayee, entitled to succeed to Sellayee's property and the suit property belonged to
them and hence Muthu Gounder cannot claim any right over the suit property and it is correct to
state that KaruppaGounder had executed a settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 in favour of Muthu
Gounder and Kuppayee. However, when Veerammal and Pavalayee were alone entitled to succeed
to the suit property, KaruppaGounder is not entitled to execute the above said settlement deed,
further under the above said settlement deed, only life estate has been given to Muthu Gounder
and Kuppayee without any encumbrance independently and after their demise, the suit property
devolved upon their heirs and it is false to state that the settlement deed dated 01.05.1924 is void
and no steps had been taken by Muthu Gounder to cancel the settlement deed. It is false to state
that there is no heir to Sellayee other than Muthu Gounder, and as the plaintiff and the first
defendant are the legal heirs of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee, both are entitled to equal share in
the suit property. It is false to state that Kuppayee had executed the release deed in favors of the
plaintiff dated 01.11.1993 in respect of her half share in the suit property and the above said release
deed is not valid. It is false to state that the suit property belong to the plaintiff as the sole legal
heir of Muthu Gounder and it is false to state that the plaintiff has been in the possession and
enjoyment of the suit property in entirety by paying Kists, obtaining Patta etc., It is false to state
that the first defendant is not entitled to alienate her share in the suit property to her grandchildren
by way of a sale deed dated 27.03.1995. After the demise of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee, as
per the settlement deed executed KaruppaGounder, the suit property should be inherited only by
their legal heirs namely the plaintiff and the first defendant and accordingly they are each entitled
to half share in the suit property and the first defendant accordingly granted her half share in favour
of her grandchildren and hence the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable and therefore the
suit is liable to be dismissed.
In support of the plaintiff's case and defendants were examined. At the time of admission of the
second appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.

And it was further held that it is not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Sellayee.
Sellayee is the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff and the
first defendant are the children of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee. Materials placed on record go
to show that Sellayee had two daughters namely Veerammal and Pavalayee and a son by name
Muthu Gounder. Admittedly when Sellayee died, as per the law, then in force, her property being
the Sridhana property, would only get vested at the first instance in favour of her daughters and
only in the absence of the daughters, the other legal heirs, i.e., the son would be entitled to inherit
the property of Sellayee in the order of succession. When it is found that on the demise of Sellayee,
she having left behind two daughters and one son, it is only the daughters who would inherit the
property belonging to Sellayee and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that on the demise of
Sellayee, Muthu Gounder had inherited the property as per the law then in force as such cannot be
accepted. Accordingly, it is found that the defendants have raised the plea that the suit laid by the
plaintiff without impleading Veerammal and Pavalayee or their legal heirs is not maintainable.
When the plaintiff has not disputed that Veerammal and Pavalayee are the daughters of Sellayee,
in the order of succession, the property belonging to Sellayee would only devolve upon her
daughters and not on Muthu Gounder.

Also Kuppayee has no right to encumber the suit property said to have been given to her by way
of settlement deed and equally when Muthu Gounder has also not been given the power to
encumber the suit property under the said document and when after their demise, the property
should be inherited by their legal heirs, it is seen that the claim of the plaintiff that after the demise
of Muthu Gounder in the year 1942, he had become entitled to his share absolutely as such cannot
be accepted in any manner. When as per Ex.A2 instrument, the property after the demise of Muthu
Gounder and Kuppayee should devolve upon their legal heirs and when admittedly the plaintiff
and the first defendant are their legal heirs, the claim of the plaintiff that he is entitled to the share
of Muthu Gounder exclusively on his demise as such cannot be accepted in any manner.

And also Muthu Gounder is not shown to be entitled to inherit the suit property on the demise of
Sellayee and assuming for the sake of arguments, that Ex.A2 settlement deed is valid, as per the
terms thereof, on the demise of Muthu Gounder and Kuppayee, their legal heirs would be entitled
to derive the suit property equally, it is found that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim exclusive
title to the suit property or to the alleged share belonging to Muthu Gounder on his demise during
1942 and similarly the plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim title to the suit property on the strength
of the release deed said to have been executed by Kuppayee, when she has not been given the
power of encumbrance.

In this connection, the counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decision reported in AIR
2002 SCC 136 [ Rajendra Tiwary Vs. Basudeo Prasad and Another] and the counsel for the
respondents placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2016 (3) MWN (Civil) 487 [Muthusamy
and three others Vs. A.Maruchamy and another]

In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.