ASSIGNMENT I.

LEGAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 138 OF NEGOTIABLE

INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881.

MS. AYUSHI GOYAL

ADVOCATE
12/2 Deshak Law Firms, Viman Nagar,
PUNE 411014
Phones: 020-127005027
Dated: 23rd August 2013

LEGAL NOTICE
(BY REGISTERED A.D)
To,
Mr. Sumeet,
M/S Abdc Enterprises,
Address:
Nisha Enclave, Ambegaon
Pune, Maharashtra- 400016

Sir,

Subject: Legal Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in respect
of Cheque bearing No.882345, for dishonour of cheque and payment of an outstanding
amount Rs, 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand Only).

Under the instructions and behalf of my client, Mr Ajit, R/at: 101, Kasaba Peth, Pune,
Maharashtra – 411011, I have to address you this notice as under:

1. That my client is residing at the aforementioned address with his family. That my client
carries out transaction of sale and purchase of shares in the share market through the
Share Broking Firm, M/s Abdc Enterprises, owned by you.
2. On 5th August 2013, my client instructed you to sell 200 shares of Reliance at Rs 550/-
each, amounting to the total of Rs.1,10,000/- (One Lakh and Ten Thousand Rupees
Only). My client further signed the “D-Mat” slip and handed over the same to you
 immediately for complying with the formalities of the transactions. My client states that,
you are thus bound and liable to make payment of the shares of Reliance sold by you.

3. My client states that, in order to discharge your liability, you issued to my client a
Cheque bearing no. 882345 dated 10/08/2013 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd, Pune Branch
for Rs 1,10,000/- (One Lakh and Ten Thousand Rupees Only). At the time of issuing the
cheque, you assured my client that the same is good for the value and will be honoured as
and when presented.

4. My client states that, when the aforesaid cheque bearing no. 882345, was presented for
encashment on the same day, i.e. 10/08/2013, by my client to his banker in ICICI, Pune,
the same was returned unpaid by the banker through a Return Memo, dated 13/08/2013
with remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Copy of the Return Memo dated 13/08/2013 by State
Bank of India, Pune, is hereby marked and annexed as ‘Annexure-A’.

5. My client has instructed that this matter of fact was brought to your notice through
various telephonic conversations. My client states that despite various reminders, you
considerably have failed to make the payment, due to my client and did not accede to the
genuine request of my client. Furthermore, you started to put the matter off and on, on
one pretext or the other.

6. My client opinionated that your negligent behaviour of such type raises reasonable doubt
on your integrity, probity and honesty. Hence, my client is left with no other option but to
get served with the present legal notice against you and take appropriate legal actions to
recover the due amount.

7. The contents of the aforesaid notice are without prejudice to the rights of my client in any
proceedings which may be initiated to recover the full amount without further notice to
you before any court of law with regard to the aforementioned dues.

8. That in view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, you are liable to be
prosecuted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as amended up to
date and are liable to be punished with an imprisonment which may extend to two years
or a fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheques or with both, if the required
 payment is not made to my client within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from date of receipt
of notice.

9. That under the circumstance, my client being the creditor and you being indebted to my
client for a principal amount of the aforesaid cheque Rs. 1,10,000 (Rupees One Lakh
Ten Thousand Only) are required to make the payment to my client either in cash or by
demand draft or cheque which ever mode suits you better, within a period of 15 (fifteen)
days from the date of receipt of notice, failing which, my client will be compelled to take
further necessary action and initiate appropriate proceeding under the provisions of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at your peril, costs and consequences thereof, please
note. You are also liable to pay the cost of Rs.2000/- towards the notice charges.

Yours Faithfully
[Ms. Ayushi Goyal]
ADVOCATE

Enclosures:
1. Copy of Return Memo dated 13/08/2013 is hereby marked and annexed as
‘Annexure-A’.
 ASSIGNMENT II.

DIVORCE PETITION BY MUTUAL CONSENT

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, PUNE

AT PUNE.

H.M.A PETITION NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. BAA
Age: 25 years
D/o: Shri XXX
R/o: 302, Alakanda Flats
Pune- 411009………………………………………………………………Petitioner 1.

AND

Mr. AAA
Age: 30 years
S/o: Shri YYY
R/o: 105A Gauchibavalei,
Thane, Mumbai – 400017……………………………………………………Petitioner 2.

PETITION FOR OBTAINING DIVORCE ON GROUND OF MUTUAL CONSENT

UNDER SECTION 13-B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

The Petitioners Above Named Most Respectfully Submit as Under:

1. That the Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 are both by religion and faith Hindus and
their marriage was solemnized as per Hindus rites/ customs at Pune on 1 st March, 2010 and
the said marriage was duly registered under the office seal.

2. The Petitioners state that the marriage was duly consummated and there is no issue out of
the said wedlock. After their marriage, the Petitioners started residing together in Thane,
Mumbai. However, after a few months, the Petitioners started facing problems with their
marriage and there were frequent quarrels and disagreements, which made it difficult for
them to reside together as husband and wife.

3. The petitioners also found that there existed a vast temperamental disparity in the thoughts
and behaviours and often had a difference of opinion on every minor and major issues. Due
to the deteriorating situation of their marriage, the Petitioner No.1 left the company and
cohabitation of Petitioner No.2 on 12th January, 2012 and started residing separately since
then. The petitioners have never stayed together or cohabited since their separation.

4. That in view of the above factors into consideration, the petitioners, in spite of their best
efforts and also the efforts taken by their will wishers, friends and relatives to resolve the
differences between them, found it impossible for them to live as husband and wife.
Therefore, the petitioners have decided to dissolve their marriage mutually and sever the
matrimonial ties as there does not exist any other bond between them.

5. The petitioners state that they have been living separately since 12 th January ,2012 and they
have not had any matrimonial relationship since then. The Petitioner No. 1 is residing at her
residence 302, Alakanda Flats and the Petitioner No. 2 is residing at his residence at 105A
Gauchibavalei,
6. The Petitioners state that they have decided to part ways gratefully by taking divorce by
mutual consent on the following consents, terms and conditions:

a. Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 have mutually settled all issues and thus, have no
grievances, allegations or complaints against each other.

b. The Petitioner No.1 at the time of filing of the present petitioner shall return to Petitioner
No.2 for her Mangalsutra, five pairs of gold necklaces, which are in the custody of the
Petitioner No.2.

d. The Petitioner No.1 has received all her stridhan and the same is in her possession and
therefore she has no claim, grievance or complaint in respect of the same transaction.
g. The Petitioner No.1 being a practicing lawyer in a law firm, is in a position to maintain
herself and states that she has given up and waived her rights of maintenance against the
Petitioner No.2 unconditionally forever and shall not claim any past, present and future
maintenance from the Petitioner No.2. Similarly, the Petitioner No 2 is a businessman and is
capable of earning sufficiently for himself and therefore has given up and waived his right of
maintenance against the Petitioner No.1 forever and shall not claim any past, present and
future maintenance from Petitioner No.1.

h. The petitioners submit that they shall not claim any right, title or interest at any time in the
movable or immovable properties held at present by either of them or that might be acquired
by them in future.

i. That petitioners have mutually agreed to bear all the costs of this litigation in equal parts,
including cost of filing the present petition, lawyer fees and/or any other ancillary expenses
that may be incurred till the final adjudication of this petition.

7. The petitioners submit that the cause of action for filing the present petition arose on 12 th
January 2012, when they started residing separately. The petitioners have been residing
separately for a period of 1 year and the petitioners are entitled to file the present petition.

8. That petitioners further submit that their consent for filing the present petition has not been
obtained by force, fraud or pressure, undue influence, coercion from any quarter whatsoever
and the petitioners have signed the present petition and accompanying affidavit out of their
own free will and consent.

9. That the present petition has not been presented in collusion with each other.

10. That the petitioners have not filed any similar petition and there are no divorce
proceedings pending before any court and therefore there are no legal impediments in grant of
the decree of divorce to the parties on the basis of mutual consent.

11. That the parties to the petition assure and undertake not to file or initiate any civil or
criminal legal proceeding against each other in respect of marriage, dowry/ stridhan.

12. That there has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the
proceedings.
13. That the marriage was solemnized within the local limits of jurisdiction and that
on date of filing of the petition, Petitioner No. 1 is residing in Pune, which falls
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court, hence this Hon’ble court has
jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present petition.
14. The petitioners state that a period of more than 1 year has lapsed since the separation and
hence there is no bar to file the present petition for divorce by mutual consent.

15. The necessary court fee stamp as required under the law has been paid.

16. Relief.

It is therefore humbly prayed that in view of the abovementioned circumstances

A. That the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 registered on 1 st March
2010 may be dissolved by decree of divorce under Section 13-b of HMA, 1955.
B. Any other just and equitable order in the interest of justice as demand fit by honourable
court may kindly be passed.

Place: Pune

Dated: 14th August, 2013 Shri AAA

Place: Pune

Dated: 14th August, 2013 Smt. BAA

VERIFICATION:
The above named petitioner’s state on solemn affirmation that paras 1 to 15 of
the petition are true to their knowledge and true to the information received and
believed to be true by them. The above contents have been read over and
explained to us in Hindi and we have understood the same hence we have signed
hereunder on 14th August, 2013 at Pune.
 ASSIGNMENT IV.

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, PUNE AT PUNE

Civil Suit No: ______ of 2018

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

In The Matter Of:

M/s ABC Pvt. Ltd

106/B, Vashi
Mumbai- 400201……….…………………………………………………….Plaintiff

M/s XYZ and SONS

124, Diamond Flats,
Devarajas Road, Pune 411009…………………………………………………Respondent.

The plaintiff named herein above most respectfully submits that:

1. That the plaintiff is a company under the name and style of M/s ABC Pvt. Ltd. and Mr.
Aryan Agarwal, through whom the present suit is being instituted, is the Director of the
plaintiff company. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing of
automobile spare parts.
2. The plaintiff states that, during the course of business, against the respondents valid and
confirmed order, the plaintiff has supplied the required spare parts consisting of tyres,
engines, exhaust pipes etc., worth Rs. 11,00,000/- (Eleven Lakhs Rupees Only) to the
defendant on credit basis. A purchase order to this effect was received by the plaintiff on
1st February, 2018.

3. The plaintiff states that, the plaintiff did the job work as per the satisfaction of the
respondent and the respondent had accepted the said order without any objection,
complaint and/or demur as per the quality, quantity, price and delivery thereof. Further,
the plaintiff also issued proper bills to the respondent, which were accepted and
acknowledged by the respondent. Thus, the plaintiff states that, respondent are bound and
liable to make payment for the goods supplied by the plaintiff on credit.

4. The plaintiff states that, in order to discharge liability, the respondent issued a Cheque
bearing No. 000501 dated 28th August, 2018 for an amount of Rs 11,00,000/- (Eleven
Lakhs Rupees Only) drawn at State Bank of India, Kalyani Nagar, Pune to the plaintiff.
At the time of issuing the cheque, the respondent assured the plaintiff that the same is
good for the value and will be honoured as and when presented. Copy of the cheque
000501 dated 28th August 2018 amounting to Rs. 11,00,000 is hereby marked and
annexed as ‘Annexure-A’.

5. The plaintiff states that the aforesaid cheque was presented within the period of 6 months,
i.e. on 30th August 2018, for encashment, by the plaintiff to his banker in the Yes Bank
Branch, Pune. The same was returned unpaid by the banker through a Return Memo,
dated 4th September 2018 with remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Copy of the Return
Memo dated 4/10/2018 by HDFC Bank Branch, Pune is hereby marked and annexed
as ‘Annexure-B’.

6. That the plaintiff in due course of the cheque, had made a demand for the payment of the
amount of money through various telephonic conversations and also by sending a legal
notice in writing to the respondent within statutory period of thirty days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank through Return Memo.
7. The said notice was sent on the correct address of the respondent through a
Registered/AD letter as well as through UPC on 12th October 2018 and the said registered
 letter was deemed to be served on 14th October, 2018. The notice was not claimed by the
respondent and was thus, sent back to the sender with the endorsement "Unclaimed", as is
evident from the endorsement of post office seal on it, which legally is presumed to have
been served as otherwise.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the contents of the abovementioned notice are without
prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and the that the debt/liability, for which the cheque
was issued by the respondent to the plaintiff is a legally enforceable debt/liability. The
petitioner states that the respondent had failed to make the payment of the amount of
money to the plaintiff in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the
said notice.

9. That the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 30th August 2018, when the cheque
was dishonoured and thereafter when the legal notice was sent to the defendant through
Registered letter and UPC i.e. on 14th October 2018.

10. That the plaintiff is permanently residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
court and the office/residence of the defendant is located in the territory of this
Hon'ble Court, hence this Hon'ble Court has each and every jurisdiction to try
and entertain this suit.

11. That the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction has been fixed for Rs.
11,00,000/- and for the purposes of recovery and correct and authorized court fee
stamp of Rs. 2000 has been affixed on the plaint.

12. Relief.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that:

a) A decree for recovery to the effect that plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.
11,00,000/- along with interest @ 20% wef 30th August, 2018 till the date of realisation of
amount.
b) Cost of this suit, be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants
c)Such other reliefs as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE HUMBLE PLAINTIFF AS IN DUTY
BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

S.D. SINGH ARYAN AGARWAL

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION

I, Aayush Goyal, Managing Director of ABC Pvt Ltd and the authorized
representative in the present suit do hereby verify that the contents of the above
plaint from paras 1 to 11 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief, and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified at Pune on the 30th August, 2018.

Enclosures:
1. Copy of the cheque 000501 dated 28th August 2018 amounting to Rs. 11,00,000 is
hereby marked and annexed as ‘Annexure-A’.
2. Copy of the Return Memo dated 4/10/2018 by HDFC Bank Branch, Pune is hereby
marked and annexed as ‘Annexure-B’.
 ASSIGNMENT V.

APPLICATION FOR MAINTAINANCE

THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,

AT HYDERABAD

SPECIAL MARRIAGE PETITION NO. OF 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Jacinta.
D/o Alfie Deyes,
R/o Sankalp Apartments,
Mapusa, Goa- 403023…………………………………………………………. Petitioner.
Versus
Shri Manish,
S/o Manoj Sharma
R/o 13/B Namrata Complex Society,
Ameenpur, Hyderabad – 500034……………………………………………….Respondent.

AN APPLICATION FOR MAINTAINANCE PENDENT LITE & EXPENSES OF

PROCEEDINGS.

The above mentioned Petitioner submits this application, praying to the state as follows.
1. That the Petitioner and the Respondent solemnized their marriage in the city of
Hyderabad on 5th January 2003 and the marriage duly got registered by the Marriage
Officer bearing No. 435/2003, and the said marriage is subsisting.
2. The Petitioner maintained that the initial proceedings for divorce initiated under Section
28(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954; are pending between the parties before this
Hon’ble Court as case no. 450/2013; and that this application for maintatinance pendant
lite is made u/s 37 of the said Act.
3. The Petitioner also submits that the next day for hearing of the case is fixed for
28/01/2014.
4. That the Petitioner and the Respondent were happily married for 9 long years and have
two children from their marriage; an 8-year-old daughter, Jessi and a 4-year-old son, Jis.
5. That the Petitioner had graduated in B.COM from Goa and has been a housewife since
marriage, as was required for the care of children. However, the Respondent is a software
Engineer and is working with Wipro Tech in Hyderabad.
6. The Petitioner states that both the Petitioner and the Respondent have been living
separately since January 2012, due to severe rifts and misunderstandings and have been
unable to adjust with each other. That their marriage has broken down irretrievably and
all efforts of reconciliation between the parties have failed.
7. The Petitioner does not own any immovable property and has no source of income for her
livelihood or the livelihood for their children. That since the Petitioner has no sufficient
independent income for herself as well as for the care and needs of her children, who
have been entrusted to her, the Petitioner has not been in a position to incur the necessary
expenses for the proceedings pending before the court.
8. That the Petitioner further submits that the Respondent has not made any provision for the
maintatinance of the Petitioner.
9. That the Petitioner submits for the kind perusal of this Court that the Respondent being
the employee of the renowned software company, Wipro Tech Limited, draws a gross
monthly salary and allowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), which provides
him sufficient means.
10. That the petitioner also submits that the Respondent owns movable and immovable
property, from whereby he derives monthly income of Rs. 50,000 (Fifty Thousand
Rupees Only) as rent, as mentioned below:
(i) Housing property at Mahada Colony, Viman Nagar, Pune.
(ii) Family Property at Starlights, Hyderabad.
11. That the Petitioner further submits that there are no persons who are dependent on the
Respondent as his parents passed away a year before the marriage.
12. That the Petitioner therefore submits, having taken into consideration the financial
position of the Respondent and the requirements of the Petitioner, a monthly amount of
Rs. 20,000
(Rupees Twenty Thousand only) be kindly granted to the Petitioner as Maintatinance
pendent lite towards the sustenance of care and lifestyle of her and their children,
 including expenses for education.
13. That the Petitioner further submits that a lump sum of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Only) be paid to the Petitioner towards the expenses for the conduct of the
proceedings pending before the Hon’ble Court. That the petitioner also submits
that the amount asked for by the petitioner by the submission of this application
towards the maintatinance pendant lite and expenses for the proceedings are just
and proper.
PRAYER
14. That the Petitioner, therefore, prays that:

a) That the respondent be directed and ordered to pay unto the Petitioner the said
sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) per month during the
pendency of the proceedings.

b) The Respondent may also please be ordered to pay unto the Petitioner a lump
sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs Five Thousand Only) towards the expenses for the
conduct of the proceedings in the Hon’ble Court.
c) That any other order that the court may deem fit and proper in the interests of
justice, may kindly be passed.

Smt. Jacinta Advocate

Petitioner For Petitioner

Drawn at: Hyderabad

Dated: 20th November 2013.

VERIFICATION

I, Jacinta, the Petitioner above named, do herby state on solemn affirmation that the
contents of this application in paras 1 to 13 are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief, and so, I have signed hereunder at Hyderabad this 10th day of
December 2013.
Smt. Jacinta
(Petitioner)
 ASSIGNMENT VII
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION

IN THE COURT OF SESSION JUDGE, MUMBAI AT MUMBAI

Bail Application No. 150/2013
Misc. Application No. 420/ 2013

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. NB,

Age 48, S/o Shri TB

Dy. Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State.

16/4, Bandra Police Colony

Mumbai, Maharashta – 211 006……………………………………………………Applicant.

Versus

State of Maharashtra ………………………………………………………………Respondent.

AN APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL U/S 438

OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,1973

The applicant above named is accused No. 22 in the dock before the Hon’ble Court, most
respectfully applies for anticipatory Bail on the following grounds –

a. That the Applicant is the citizen of India and is entitled for all the fundamental rights
under the Constitution of India. The Applicant is the part of Indian Police Service,
 permanently residing in Mumbai, Maharashtra. The respondent is the State of
Maharashtra.
b. The facts of the case of Applicants are as under:
a. That the Applicant holds a rank of Dy. Inspector General of Police in state of
Maharashtra. The applicant has been dedicated to his service for 19 years. The applicant
has also been posted as Addl. Commissioner Police of Crime Branch in Mumbai.
b. That in consequence of the protests by the political parties and Human Right
Organisations, the CBI issued a press release mentioning about the filing of a charge
sheet against the Applicant on the false facts for the offence of involvement in the
conspiracy of fake encounter of criminal gang, Latif.
c. That FIR for the offences under Section 121 and 124-A was filed against the criminal
gang of Latif, which was involved in various criminal cases registered in state of
Rajasthan, Delhi and Gujrat and caused numerous issues to the Businessman in
Rajasthan. The FIR was filed by the Accused No. 6 on the directions of the Accused
No.1.
d. Accused No. 3, Superintendent of Police, Harsh Mishra of Rajasthan Cadre, approached
and made representation to his IPS batch mate, the Applicant for seeking his prior
permission and assistance to arrest Latif.
e. That based on the representations made by SP Harsh Mishra, the Applicant directed the
GR, Senior Police Inspector of Detection Crime Branch, Mumbai to render necessary
assistance to the Rajasthan Police Force. Subsequently on 23rd November 2011, the team
containing the Senior Police Inspector GR along with the Rajasthan Police Force
containing Accused No. 3,4,5,6,7 and 8 arrested Latif from Sunmark Hotel, Cater Road in
Mumbai.
f. On the request of the Rajasthan Police, the Applicant rendered them necessary permit and
the vehicles to take Latif to Jaipur for the purpose of further investigation.
g. That the Applicant directed Senior Police Inspector GR to accompany the Rajasthan
Police till Jaipur. As the convoy of vehicles reached Bhilad check post at Gujarat State,
The Rajasthan Police asked Senior Police Inspector GR to go back to Mumbai as they had
reached Gujarat and would take assistance from Gujarat Police. Hence Senior Police
Inspector GR returned to Mumbai from there. Later it was learnt that Latif was killed in
an encounter.
c. The Applicant apprehended his arrest at the hands of the Mumbai Police in connection to
the fake encounter of Latif, Applicants are hereby approaching this Hon’ble Court with a
prayer for the Anticipatory Bail, on the following amongst the other grounds which
without prejudice to one other:

GROUNDS:

a) There can be no case made out against the Applicant as the Applicant has been falsely
implicated into the case and the allegations against the Applicant are prima facie false.
b) From the above mentioned facts, it is evident that no remote relationship could be
construed between the applicant and the offence. The Applicant was not directly or
indirectly, a part of any criminal conspiracy as the Applicant performed his acts in
pursuance of his official obligations i.e. within the ambit of his professional duty. Hence,
he cannot be held liable for the actions.
c) The true facts and the malicious intentions of the Accused No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were
suppressed from the Applicant. The Applicant assisted in Latiff’s arrest on the basis of
true and honest belief of the truth and accuracy of the representation made by the
Accused No. 3, 4, 5,6,7 and 8.
d) The Applicant is undoubtedly a respectable and law abiding officer as he was serving as
Dy. Inspector General of Police and also got posted as Addl. Commissioner Police of
Crime Branch. The capability of the Applicant can be witnessed through his good track
record and numerous medals and awards including the President’s Police Medal for
Distinguished Service, Police Medal for Gallantry, etc.
e) Therefore, taking the Applicant into custody would act as a demeanour not only for him
in his professional capacity but also to the State Administration. Further, if the Applicant
is taken into custody the furtherance of the State Administrative machinery will come at a
standing halt as the post held by the Applicant is an important one.
f) Furthur, it is also witnessed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sidharam Mhetre v.
State of Mahrashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694], which states that the power under section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be exercised to strike balance between a
person’s liberty and fair investigation and arrest should be the last option.

g) Therefore, the allegations are so baseless that the custodial interrogation is not necessary
and the same can be met with attending the investigation if so required.
h) The Applicant undertake to cooperate with the investigating agency and will attend the
police station if required or directed by this Hon’ble Court;
i) That since the offence is cognizable in nature, the applicant undertakes to abide by any of
condition and terms that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court for admitting the
applicant to anticipatory bail.

d. The Applicants seek liberty of this Hon’ble Court to add, amend, alter and delete any of
the aforesaid grounds and the same may not be treated as suppression of material facts.
e. The Applicants have not preferred any application before this Hon’ble Court or before
any other Hon’ble Court with respect to the subject matter.

PRAYER
1. In the event of arrest of the Applicant, in connection with the charge sheet, the
applicant may be released on Bail on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper.
2. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present application, interim reliefs may
be granted directing the respondent not to arrest the Applicant;
3. Any other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require,
may kindly be passed.

Place….. Date….
Application through Counsel.

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. N. B, the applicant, above-named do hereby solemnly state and declare that the
contents of para 1to 4 are true my knowledge and I believe the same to be true and nothing
material has been concealed there from.

Solemnly affirmed as aforesaid

At Pune

Date this 20th July 2013.

Sd/-
 Applicant.

ASSIGNMENT VIII
BAIL APPLICATION

The Court Of Ld. 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon

Court, Mumbai, At Mumbai

Bail Application No. …………./ 2013

Mr. G.R.

Age 55 Years, S/o Mr. XYZ,

Senior Police Inspector, Detection Crime Branch, Mumbai,

R/o 58 Nagpal Police Quarter, Mumbai…………………………………...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra……………………………………………………Respondent.

APPLICATION FOR BAIL U/S 437 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

The applicant above named is accused No. 23 and submits before the Hon’ble Court as
follows:

1. That the Applicant is an honourable citizen of India and is entitled for all the fundamental
rights guaranteed under the constitution. The Applicant holds a rank of the Senior Police
Inspector, Detection Crime Branch, Mumbai and has been dedicated to his service for 23
years. The Applicant permanently resides in Nagapada Police Quarters, Mumbai.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

 i. That an FIR was filed by the Rajasthan Police for the offences under Section 121 and 124-
A against criminal gang of Latif, which was involved in various criminal cases in the state
of Rajasthan, Delhi and Gujrat.
ii. The FIR was filed in pursuance of an alleged conspiracy by Accused No 1,2,3,4,5 to kill
Latif by way of a fake encounter.
iii. The Accused No. 3 approached his IPS batch mate Accused No. 22 (hereinafter referred
to as ND), representing Latif as a wanted criminal in the State of Rajasthan and requested
for ND’s assistance in arresting Latif.
iv. That based on the representations made, ND directed the Applicant to render necessary
assistance to Rajasthan Police to apprehend Latif.
v. That on the direction of ND, the Applicant activated his network of informers and also
provided logical support. On 23/10/201, the Applicant received the secret information
about the whereabouts of Latif, that he stayed in Sunmark Hotel, Carter Road, Bandra,
Mumbai under the assumed name of Usman.
vi. That, subsequently on informing the same to ND, the Applicant, on 23rd October 2011,
alongwith Accused No. 3,4,5,6,7, and 8 arrested Latif alongwith the other accused and
brought them to Bandra Crime Unit. The Applicant, further completed the necessary arrest
formalities as evidenced by the station diary and arrest Panchnama.
vii. On the request of the Rajasthan Police, ND directed the Applicant to accompany the
Rajasthan Police Party towards Jaipur. On the Bhilad checkpost at Gujrat state, the
Rajasthan Police told the Applicant to return back to Mumbai as they intended to take
assistance from Gujrat Police.
viii. That later, through widespread media publicity, it came to the knowledge of the ND and
Applicant that Latif was killed in an encounter during the early hours of 24th near Navsari.
ix. That on a writ petition, the Supreme Court directed CBI to conduct investigation.
The CBI arrested accused 1 to 8 and on public hue and cry, filed a supplementary
charge-sheet against the Applicant and NB before this Hon’ble Court on 11th
July, 2013.
x. That the applicant was arrested by the police on 15th July, 2013 in lieu of the
supplementary charge sheet filed against him before the 2nd Addl. C.M.M., Mazgaon
Court, Mumbai, and sent up for remand to custody in the above case.

3. Being aggrieved with the arrest and at the hands of the Respondent, the Applicant is
approaching this Hon’ble Court praying for bail on the following amongst other grounds.
GROUNDS

a. The Applicant shall be granted bail as he is innocent and has not committed any
offence. The charges levied against the Applicant are completely baseless
concocted by the Respondent in response to the pressures exerted by the political
parties and the human rights organizations.

b. The Applicant is undoubtedly a respected officer and has had a good track record of
detecting complicated cases for a period of 23 years. Hence, refusing the grant
of bail by the Hon’ble Court to the Applicant would cause irreparable loss and
injury and also shall be subjected to mental trauma for no fault on his part.
c. It is pertinent to note that the charge-sheet in the present matter is filed, hence
the custody for the purpose of investigation is not required.
d. It is pertinent to note that the applicant was never a party to the alleged
conspiracy. The applicant merely followed the directions of the Dy. Inspector
General of the Police, NB in good faith and acted within the ambit of his
professional duty. Hence, it is crystal clear that none of the ingredients of the
alleged offences are attracted as against the present applicant.
e. The Applicant has been in the custody for the past 3 months but no evidence of
substance has been brought forth by the Respondent that would establish a nexus
between the Applicant and the alleged offence. It is further pertinent to note that
in the absence of any material to establish that the applicant has at any time
conspired with any of the co-accused for commission of the alleged offence, the
applicant can’t be roped into the allegation of conspiracy.
f. Further it is well settled law that to bring the accused within the ambit of
conspiracy, meeting of minds has to be established and same is absent in the
entire material before the Hon’ble court.
g. That no prima facie case is made out against the Applicant and as per “Gurcharan Singh
v. Delhi Administration” [AIR 1978 SC 179], the Supreme Court has stated that
a prima facie case must be made out, based on the investigation so far.
h. Also the law on the bail has been well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case, “State of Rajasthan v Balchand”, where it was held that “Bail is Rule and
Jail is an Exception”.
i. That the applicant respectfully submits that he will obey and abide by the orders
and terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, and he will
 not abscond, but on the contrary extend full cooperation to the police and face
the trial to vindicate his innocence.

4. The Applicants seek liberty of this Hon’ble Court to add, amend, alter and delete any of the

aforesaid grounds and the same may not be treated as suppression of material facts.

5. The Applicants have not preferred any application before this Hon’ble Court or before any

other Hon’ble Court with respect to the subject matter.

PRAYER

The applicant therefore humbly prays that:

1. This Hon’ble court be pleased to release the applicant on Bail on any such terms
and conditions as the court deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances of
the case.
2. This Hon’ble court may be pleased to release the applicant on provisional cash
bail and further time of eight weeks may kindly be granted to furnish security;
3. Any other just and equitable reliefs that this Hon’ble court may deem fit and
proper may be granted.

[Shri G.R]
APPLICANT
Mumbai,
Dated 15th September 2013

ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT

VERIFICATION

I, GR, Senior Police Inspector, Detection Crime Branch, Mumbai City, resident of
Nagapada Police Quarters, Mumbai, do hereby solemnly affirm that the facts
contained in abovementioned Paragraphs are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.

(sign)
 Solemnly affirmed by the said GB on 15th day of September, 2013 at the
Sessions Court House in Mumbai
ASSIGNMENT X.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, PUNE AT PUNE.

Complaint No._____________ / 2018

Shri Rakesh Thanekar

Age: 40 years
Occupation: Services
S/o Shri Mahesh Thanekar
R/at: B- 20015, Nico Estate,
Viman Nagar, Pune- 411003…………………………………………Complainant No. 1

Shri Shekhar Gupta

Age: 35 years,
Occupation: Bank Manager at Nationalised Bank,
R/at: Ananad Nagar, New Delhi- 110092…………………………………Complainant No. 2

Versus
Zigma Co. Pvt Ltd, Korea
A co. having its branch office at
11/12, Solapur street, Vashi
Mumbai, 400014…………….................................................Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT, 1986
The complainant above-named most respectfully submits that:

1. That the Complainant No. 1 is the Management and Motivational Trainer, residing in
Pune and the Complainant No. 2 is a Bank Manager in the Nationalised Bank, situated in
Delhi.

2. That the Opposite party is a is Private Company with its headquarters in Korea and its
various branch offices and showrooms in different parts of the world including Pune and
Delhi in India. The Company is involved in the business of manufacture and sale of the
electronic products including laptops.

3. That the Opposite Party has its registered office in Mumbai and is represented through its
CEO, Mr. Rohit Jadhav.

TRANSACTION

1. That Complainant No. 2, on 1st June 2018, bought a laptop manufactured by the Zigma
Company, Korea from their showroom in Mathura Road, New Delhi.

2. The said Laptop is Zigma “Star” with 8 GB RAM, 12-inch Screen and is White in color.

3. That the Complainant No. 2 paid the consideration amount of Rs. 47,000/- (Rupees Forty-
Seven Thousand Only) as the full and final price vide cash memo 85630/2018. A copy of
the cash memo is hereby attached as “ Annexure- A”.
4. The said laptop was gifted by the Complainant No.2 to Complainant No. 1 for his
personal use on 8th June 2018.

DEFECT

1. That, on 18th June 2018, just after 10 days of gifting to Complainant No.1, the laptop was
found faulty and suddenly stopped functioning with no negligence on the part of the
complainant.

2. That the battery power of the laptop slowed down and the laptop started overheating
within 10 days and stopped responding and shutting down automatically.

3. That the said fault caused a considerable loss to the Complainant No.1, including loss of
important documents and other files relevant to the Complainant’s official work.

4. That the Complainant No. 1, immediately on 20th June 2018, reported his grievance of the
 defective good to the Zigma Service Centre, situated in New Delhi and also to the
Complainant No.2. The Complainant No.1 was assured of repair/ exchange of the faulty
laptop expeditiously, within 5 days, i.e. by 25th June 2018.

5. However, on 25th June 2018, there was no update from the Service Centre. Despite
subsequent repeated calls for a few days and there existing a service warranty on the Laptop
of 1 year after purchase, there was no advancement in the repair/exchange of the defective
laptop.

6. That the Complainant had to prefer to this complaint and serve several notices annexed
as “Annexure B” to the registered office of the Opposite Party but received no reply or
response from the same.

7. That the laptop carried a Warranty Card annexed as “Annexure C” claiming expedite
servicing in cases of minor defects and complete exchange/ restoration for material
defects.
8. That the complainant was unhappy with the goods and service of the Zigma Company
and he stands firm on the legal ground for claiming relief for the defective good
concerned and deficiency in service provided to him. Further, the apathetic attitude of the
Opposite Party reflects its indifference to the complainants’ plight.

JURISDICTION

1. That the Cause of Action arose partly in Pune, which is within the local limits of this
Hon’ble Forum, and thus this Hon’ble Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain this
Complaint.

2. Further the compensation claimed does not exceed the Pecuniary Limits of the
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum.

3. The requisite fee of Rs. 100 has been paid herewith.

LIMITATION

That the Cause of Action to file the present complaint arose within a period of 3 months i.e.
on 18th June 2018, when the laptop was found faulty . Hence the present complaint is within
the limitation period prescribed under Section 24 A of the Act.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that wherefore in the
light of the aforementioned circumstances, may this Forum be pleased to
1. Direct the Opposite Party to replace the defective laptop with immediate effect

2. Grant a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) towards

the damages suffered by the complainant.
3. The opponent may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three
thousand Only) for mental agony and pain suffered by the Applicant.
4. Award any other relief(s) which the forum may deem fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case may be passed in the favour of the complainant and
against the opposite parties.

For which act of kindness, the Complainant shall, as is duly bound, ever pray.
Place: Pune
Dated: June 18, 2018
Sd
Complainant
Through
Sd-
(Advocate for Complainant)

Enclosures:

1. A copy of the cash memo is hereby attached as “Annexure- A”.

2. Several notices annexed as “Annexure B”.

3. Warranty Card annexed as “Annexure C

Verification
I, Rakesh Thanekar, the complainant above named, do hereby solemnly verify that
the contents of my above complaint are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of
it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein.
Verified this 10th day of September 2018 at Pune.

Sd/-
Complainant.
 ASSIGNMENT NO. XVI.

PUBLIC NOTICE

NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Ratesh, son of Mr. Parimal Sharma resident of 301,

Rohan Abhilasha, Magarpatta, Delhi - 411039 and Mr. Naresh, son of Mr. Parimal Sharma

resident of 301, Rohan Abhilasha, Magarpatta, Delhi- 411039 have agreed to sell the

property described in the Schedule hereto below free from all encumbrances, to my client

Mr Annand, resident of D-304, Complex Apartment, Vashi, Mumbai vide Agreement dated

3rd September 2018.

Any person having any claim or right in respect of the said property by way of inheritance,

share, sale, mortgage, lease, lien, license, gift, possession or encumbrance howsoever or

otherwise is hereby required to intimate to the undersigned at his office at 245 Ramakrishna

Towers, Kamla Nagar, Juhi Vila Parli Scheme, Magarpatta, Delhi- 411039; within 14 days

from the date of the publication of this notice of his such claim, if any, with all supporting

documents failing which the transaction shall be completed without reference to such claim

and the claims, if any, of such person shall be treated as waived and not binding on our

clients.

THE SCHEDULE ABOVE REFERRED TO:

All that piece and parcel of the open piece of non - agricultural land admeasuring 5000 sq. ft

being and situated at Ulhas Chowk, Koregaon Park, Delhi 411 075.

Dated: 8/12/2018.
Place: Delhi
 Prar & Associates Advocates
for the Intending Purchasers,
D-16, Block 7, Clifton, Viman Chowk, Pune 411 023

ASSIGNMENT X1X.

PETITION FOR DIVORCE ON GROUNDS OF CRUELTY

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

M.J. PETITON NO. 320 OF 2012

Mrs. XY

Age: 32years.

D/o: Mr. ULR

Occupation: Clerk in HDFC Bank, Pune

R/o: D-304, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411004……………………….Petitioner

Versus

Mr X

Age: 30 years.

S/O: Mr. YX

Occupation: Civil Road Contractor, Pune

R/o: #27, Star Complex, Koregaon Road, Pune -411037……………………….Respondent

PETITION FOR DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,

1955
The above-mentioned petitioner respectfully submits as under that:

1. That the Petitioner and the Respondent are both by religion and faith Hindus and their
marriage was solemnized as per Hindus rites/ customs at Pune on 1st Jan 2010 and the
said marriage was duly registered under the seal of the office of marriage bureau, Pune on
1st January, 2010 under a Certificate, evidencing the said marriage.

2. The Petitioner and the Respondent are domiciled in India and the parties cohabited and
started residing together at the Respondents house in Pune, after marriage.

3. The Petitioner successfully completed her B.COM degree on 2nd April 2011. After the
graduation, the Petitioner applied for jobs in various banks and got hired for the position
of a bank clerk in HDFC Bank, Pune. The Respondent, on the other hand, is a civil road
contractor working in Pune- 411037.

4. The Petitioners stated that the marriage was duly consummated and the parties had no
issues and arguments in the marriage. However, the Petitioner started facing problems
after a few months, when she started working in the Bank.

5. The Petitioner stated that the Respondent and her in-laws condemned the idea of the
Petitioner working after marriage and had threatened the Petitioner for quitting her job on
many occasions. This caused frequent quarrels and disagreements between the parties,
which made it difficult for the Petitioner to live together with the Respondent.

6. The Petitioner stated that, in spite of the disapproval and threats by Respondent and his
family, when the Petitioner refused to quit the job, her in-laws and the Respondent started
ill-treating and humiliating the Petitioner with harshness and abusing her with filthiest
language on daily basis, causing a mental trauma on the Petitioner.

7. The Petitioner stated that, for a few weeks, the Petitioner made no complaints and
underwent such ill-treatment, hoping that her in-laws and the Defendant would see the
better sense. However, with the passage of time, the situation had gotten worse as the
Respondent and his parents began repeatedly harassing the Petitioner. The Respondent
and Petitioner’s in-laws witnessed the Petitioner with her male colleagues, working in the
same branch, escorting her to the bus stop and therefore, maliciously and falsely blamed
on the character of the Petitioner.
8. The Petitioner’s family made repeated efforts and conducted several meeting with the
Respondents and the Petitioner’s in-laws in an effort to curb the false suspicions and the
baseless allegations of the Respondent and his family. The petitioner’s colleague merely
escorted her to the bus stop which didn’t imply any ill-will on the petitioner’s character.
The respondent and his family made an issue where there existed none. The petitioner had
been treated in a cruel manner with no fault of her own.

9. The Petitioner stated that her in-laws and the Respondent also began conducting
themselves towards the Petitioner with violence and had physically assaulted the
Petitioner on several occasions. On 15th May 2012, the Respondent had beaten the
Petitioner with a stick, inflicting severe injuries and multiple fractures on the hands and
legs of the Petitioner, and causing the Petitioner to be hospitalised for 7 Days.

10. As a result to the aforementioned circumstances, in order to acquire a protection order to

safeguard the petitioner from the repeated assaults, the Petitioner on 27th May 2013,
lodged a complaint, bearing complaint no. 89 of 2013 at the Pune Police Station- 411007.

11. The Petitioner stated that the Respondent continued to threaten and assault the Petitioner.
Such cruelty caused a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the Petitioner, that it would
harmful and dangerous for the Petitioner to continue living with the Respondent.

12. Therefore, due to abovementioned facts, the Petitioner has decided to part ways with the
Respondent by filing for divorce in the court of law.

13. That the petitioner is claiming alimony @Rs. 7,000/- (Seven Thousand Rupees
Only) from the Respondent.

14. That there have been no proceedings in respect of the marriage between the
Petitioner and the Respondent filed in this Hon’ble Court or in any other Court in
India before this.

15. That the petitioner’s marriage with the respondent was solemnized at Pune and
the parties last cohabited in Pune, which is within the territorial limits of the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court and, therefore, this court has got the
jurisdiction to entertain and grant appropriate relief on the present petition.

16. The notional value of this petition in Rs. 50/- for the purposes of the jurisdiction
 and the court fees and the stamp fees has been affixed hereon.

17. PRAYER:

a) That the Hon’ble court be pleased to decree a dissolution of the said marriage
between the Petitioner and the Respondent on the grounds of cruelty under
Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;

b) That the Petitioner be granted alimony @Rs 7000/- per month.

c) That the Respondent be ordered and decreed to pay to the Petitioner the cost of the
Petition.
d) That the Respondent be directed to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs 25,000/- so as to enable
her to find the suitable accommodation for herself and for other medical expenses.

e) For such other further relief(s), as the nature and circumstances of the case may
require.

Petition drawn by

Sd/- Sd/-

Petitioner’s Advocate
Petitioner
VERIFICATION

I, Mrs. XY, the petitioner, above-named do hereby solemnly state and declare that
the contents of para 1 to para 11 are true to my own knowledge and the contents of
remaining paras are based on the information supplied to me and I believe the same
to be true.

Solemnly affirmed as aforesaid

At Pune
12th August 2012.