SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL HYDERABAD

ASSIGNMENT – 1 (SUITS)

SUBMITTED ON

14TH SEPTEMBER, 2023

By

NAME - AKHILA SURESH

PRN - 19010323131

CLASS- DIV-B, BATCH- 2019-2024

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF ESTEEMED FACULTY

DR.ANITHA SABLE

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL HYDERABAD

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL.NO SUIT PAGE.NO

1. Suit to recover money due on a promissory note 3-6
(plaint)

2. Suit for specific performance of a contract 7-9

3. Suit for maintenance by wife 10-12

4. Petition for decree of divorce 13-15

5. An appeal to the High Court 16-18

6. Complaint under Section 500 IPC 19-21

7. Application under Section 438 of CrPC 22-24
8. Consumer Complaint 25-27
9. Application for an Interim Injunction 28-30
10. Writ Petition on Habeas Corpus 31-34
11. SLP- Article 136 of Indian Constitution 35-38
12. Execution Petition for money decree 39-42

13. Writ Petition as per Article 32 of Indian 43-46

Constitution on the ground of sustainable ground

14. Legal Notice under Section 138 of NI Act 47-48

15. Special Power of Attorney 49-51

2
1. Suit To Recover Money Due On A Promissory Note (Plaint)

IN THE HONOURABLE CITY CIVIL COURT OF BANGALORE, AT BANGALORE,

KARNATAKA

SUIT NO. OS 876/2023

Shyam Narayayan Shukla s/o Prem Narayayan Shukla, age about 40 years, r/o Hospital Rd,
Lalitpur Colony, Lashkar, Bangalore, Karnataka (474009)

Plaintiff

Versus

Raj Bihari Parmanand, s/o Damji Bhai Parmanand, age about 50 years, r/o M-201, Purana Road,
Bangalore, Karnataka (456786)

Defendant

SUIT FILED UNDER ORDER XXXVII OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS 50,000/- AND INTEREST

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The plaintiff, Shyam Narayayan Shukla, above-named, most respectfully submits as follows:

1. That the plaintiff resides at Hospital Rd, Lalitpur Colony, Lashkar, Bangalore, Karnataka
(474009), and the defendant, Raj Bihari Parmanand, resides at M-201, Purana Road,
Bangalore, Karnataka (456786).
2. That the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs 50,000/- from the plaintiff on 1 January 2021 for
a period of 10 months.

3
3. That on the same day, i.e., 1 January 2021, the defendant executed a promissory note in
favour of the plaintiff acknowledging the debt and the terms of repayment.
4. That as per the terms explicitly outlined in the duly executed promissory note, which is a
legally binding document, the defendant unequivocally and in writing agreed to pay interest
at the rate of 12% per annum. This interest amounts to Rs 5,000 and was to accrue from the
date of the loan, which was 1 January 2021, continuing until the agreed repayment date of
31 October 2021.
5. It is a matter of significant concern and financial detriment to the plaintiff that, despite a
substantial period having elapsed since the stipulated repayment date, the defendant has
regrettably and wilfully neglected their legal obligation to settle both the principal loan
amount of Rs 50,000 and the corresponding interest that was explicitly agreed upon in the
promissory note, totalling Rs 5,000.
6. That the total outstanding amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff is as follows: As
per the terms of the promissory note, the defendant is unequivocally liable for the principal
loan amount of Rs 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) which was extended on 1 January
2021. Furthermore, in strict adherence to the promissory note's stipulations, the defendant is
legally bound to pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum. This interest is calculated from the
loan's origination date, 1 January 2021, up to the date of filing this suit, amounting to Rs
16,500 (rupees sixteen thousand five hundred only), the defendant has not fulfilled this
financial obligation, despite the lapse of time, and is thus unequivocally liable for the
amount. In addition to the principal and interest, the plaintiff has incurred legal fees of Rs
50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) to pursue this matter through legal channels, bringing
the total outstanding sum to Rs 1, 16,500 (rupees one lakh sixteen thousand five hundred
only). Thus defendant is unequivocally liable for the aforementioned total amount.
7. That despite repeated demands and reminders, the defendant has failed to make the
payment, and the plaintiff is left with no option but to initiate legal proceedings to recover
the amount due.
8. That the defendant's failure to repay the loan and interest amount is causing financial loss
and hardship to the plaintiff.
9. That the cause of action for this suit arises from the date of the loan, i.e., 1 January 2021,
and continues until the date of adjudication by this Hon'ble Court.

4
 10. That the value of this suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs 1,16,500
(rupees one lakh sixteen thousand five hundred only)., and the plaintiff has paid the court
fees of 5% of the value of the suit as per the set regulations.

That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon this matter as both the
plaintiff and the defendant reside within the jurisdiction of this Court.

PRAYER

In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to
pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs 1,16,500 (rupees one lakh sixteen thousand five hundred
only) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1 January 2021 until the date of
actual payment.
b) Award the plaintiff the cost of this suit.
c) Grant any other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the
circumstances.

Plaintiff

Shyam Narayayan Shukla

DATE: 02/09/2023

Through

Adv. Sunil Srivastava,

Advocate for the Plaintiff

Place: Bangalore

5
 VERIFICATION

Verified at Bangalore on 02/09/2023 the Plaintiff, hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 10
of the plaint are true to my knowledge derived from the records maintained by the Plaintiff in the
ordinary course of its business. The last paragraph is a prayer to this Hon'ble Court.

Plaintiff

6
2. Suit For Specific Performance Of A Contract

IN THE HONOURABLE CITY CIVIL COURT OF BANGALORE, AT, BANGALORE,

KARNATAKA

SUIT NO. OS 876/2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Akash Mohan

Plaintiff

Versus

Mr. Ram Nath

Defendant

Suit for Specific Performance of Contract Under Section XXVI Order 7 Rule 1 &2 Of The Specific
Relief Act, 1963.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The Plaintiff, Mr. Akash Mohan , residing at Hospital Rd, Lalitpur Colony, Pettah , Bangalore,
Karnataka (474009), hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff," submits as follows:

1. That the Defendant, Mr. Ram Nath , residing at M-201, Purana Road, , Bangalore,
Karnataka (456786), hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant," is the absolute owner of
the immovable property located at B-21, Naya Road, Bangalore, Karnataka (567765),
hereinafter referred to as the "Suit Property."
2. That on 1 December 2022, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a written agreement,
a copy of which is annexed hereto as Annexure A. Pursuant to this agreement, the

7
 Defendant agreed to sell the Suit Property to the Plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
(rupees five lakhs).
3. That in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the Plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- (rupees one lakhs) to the Defendant as earnest money. This payment was made
through Cheque No. 898765 on 1 December 2022. Subsequently, the Defendant withdrew
the said amount from the bank on 15 January 2023.
4. That as per the agreement, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the balance of Rs. 4,00,000/-
(rupees four lakhs) to the Defendant, and upon receipt of the balance amount, the
Defendant was bound to execute the sale deed and hand over possession of the Suit
Property to the Plaintiff.
5. That on 15 February 2023, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant to perform his part of the
agreement by executing the sale deed and facilitating the possession of the Suit Property.
Regrettably, the Defendant refused to execute the sale deed.
6. That the Plaintiff made multiple attempts to persuade the Defendant to fulfill his
obligations under the agreement, but the Defendant consistently evaded his responsibility.
7. That as a final resort, the Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 15 April 2023 upon the
Defendant, urging him to execute the sale deed and deliver possession of the Suit Property
as agreed upon. Despite receiving the legal notice, the Defendant failed to comply with the
same.
8. That the Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement by paying the
balance amount to the Defendant.
9. That the cause of action arose on 1 December 2022 when the agreement for the sale of the
Suit Property was executed. Subsequently, the cause of action continued to arise on various
dates when the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to fulfil his obligations under the
agreement.
10. The requisite court fees amounting 5% of the value of the suit is duly paid.

That the present suit is not barred by limitation.

That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon this matter as the cause of
action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

8
PRAYER:

In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a) Pass a decree of specific performance in favour of the Plaintiff, directing the Defendant to
execute the sale deed for the Suit Property and hand over possession of the same to the
Plaintiff;
b) Award costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant; and
c) Pass any other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just under the circumstances.

Plaintiff

Akash Mohan

DATE: 02/09/2023

Through

Adv. Kavya Krishnan,

Advocate for the Plaintiff

AFFIDAVIT

I, Akash Mohan, aged 34 years, residing at Hospital Rd, Lalitpur Colony, Pettah , Bangalore,
Karnataka (474009) do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-mentioned suit, and I have personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances contained in this affidavit. I swear to the truthfulness and accuracy of the statements
made herein.

9
2. That on 1 December 2022, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a written agreement, the
Defendant agreed to sell the Suit Property to the Plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five
lakhs).

3. That in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the Plaintiff paid an amount to the
Defendant, who refused to execute the sale deed.

7. That the Plaintiff made multiple attempts to persuade the Defendant to fulfil his obligations
under the agreement, but the Defendant consistently evaded his responsibility.

8. That as a final resort, the Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 15 April 2023 upon the Defendant.
Despite receiving the legal notice, the Defendant failed to comply with the same.

9. That the Plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement by paying the balance
amount to the Defendant.

10. I declare that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief, and nothing material has been concealed or misrepresented.

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Akash Sharma, the Plaintiff, hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 9 of the plaint are
true to my knowledge derived from the records maintained by the Plaintiff in the ordinary course
of its business. The last paragraph is a prayer to this Hon'ble Court.

Plaintiff

Bangalore

10
3. Suit For Maintenance By Wife

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

KERALA

CASE NO. COMPLAINT NO. CC 462/ 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs Mira Sharma,

Petitioner

Versus

Mr. Gulab Sharma,

Respondent

Petition for Maintenance under Section 125 Of Criminal Procedure Code

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The Petitioner, above-named, submits as follows:

1. That the Petitioner, Mira Sharma, is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent, Gulab
Sharma.
2. That the marriage of the Petitioner was solemnized with the Respondent on 02 February
2021 at Ram Vatika, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (87656), according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies. The marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriages at 55W6+W8Q,
Hospital Rd, Lalitpur Colony, Lashkar, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (474009). After the

11
 marriage, Petitioner started residing at the matrimonial home. A certified copy of the
extract from the concerned register is attached herewith as Annexure A.
3. That for about 1 year, the relationship between Petitioner and her husband, the Respondent,
was peaceful. However, thereafter, the Respondent started treating her with cruelty. On 1
November 2022, the Defendant contracted a second marriage with another woman named
Mukta, residing at M-201, Purana Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (456786).
Subsequent to this second marriage, the Defendant began subjecting the Plaintiff to
harassment and physical abuse.
4. That on 10 December 2022, the Respondent turned the Petitioner out of the matrimonial
home, and since then, she has been compelled to live at her parental house.
5. That the Respondent has never sent any money to the Petitioner to meet her expenses and
the expenses of their minor child, the Petitioner, having no source of income, is unable to
maintain herself and her 2-year-old daughter, Naira Sharma.
6. That the Respondent is a Government Employee earning a monthly net salary of Rs.
1,50,000/-. He has no other liability, while the Petitioner is dependent on him for her day-
to-day expenses.
7. That the Petitioner is accordingly entitled to claim maintenance to meet her day-to-day
expenses.

That this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition as the marriage between the
Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized within this jurisdiction, and both parties currently
reside within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

In light of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this Hon'ble Court is humbly
prayed to:

PRAYER

That the Petitioner, therefore, prays:

a) That the Respondent be directed to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 30,500/- by way of
Maintenance; and

12
 b) Any other relief(s) which the court may deem proper under the circumstances be also
awarded to the Petitioner.

PETITIONER

Mira Sharma

THROUGH

Adv. Jayalakshmi

Advocate

Place: Thiruvananthapuram

Date: 02/09/2023

VERIFICATION

I, Mira Sharma, the Petitioner, state on solemn affirmation that whatever is contained in paragraphs
1 to Para No. 7 of the Petition is true to my own knowledge. The last paragraph is a prayer to this
Hon'ble Court.

Signed and verified this 2nd day of September 2023 at Thiruvananthapuram.

PETITIONER

13
4. Petition For Decree Of Divorce

IN THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AT

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA

COMPLAINT NO. 234/ 2022

In The Matter Of:

Mrs. Maya Vinod,

Petitioner

Versus

Mr. Vinod Kumar,

Respondent

Petition for Decree of Divorce Under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

The Petitioner, above-named, states as follows:

1) That the marriage of the Petitioner and the Respondent was solemnized on 02 February
2019 at Ram Vatika, Thiruvananthapuram Kerala (76458), according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies. The marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriages at 55W6+W8Q,
Hospital Rd, Lalitpur Colony, Lashkar, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (474009). A certified
copy of the extract from the concerned register is attached herewith as Annexure P-1.

14
 2) That the status and place of residence of the Parties to the marriage before the marriage and
at the time of filing this petition is as follows:
a) Place of residence before the Marriage:
i) Petitioner: B-21, Naya Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (567765)
ii) Respondent: M-201, Purana Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (456786)
b) Place of residence at the time of filing the Petition:
i) Petitioner: B-21, Naya Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (567765)
ii) Respondent: M-201, Purana Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (456786)
3) That from the time of the marriage, the couple has been blessed with one son named Rahul
Sharma, aged 2 years.
4) That the Petitioner and her husband were living together at the matrimonial house.
However, on 1 December 2021, the husband, Mr. Vinod Kumar, expelled the Petitioner
from the matrimonial home after subjecting her to merciless beatings. This incident
occurred when the Petitioner questioned him about his alcohol consumption and misuse of
money for drinking liquor with his friends and his relation with some of his female friends.
5) The Petitioner has neither condoned nor connived at the acts complained of. The
Respondent has subjected the Petitioner to cruelty, beginning after 6 months of the
marriage.
6) This Petition is not being presented in collusion with the Respondent. This Petition is being
presented without any unnecessary or improper delay on the part of the Petitioner.
7) There is no other legal ground that would prevent the granting of the decree prayed for in
favour of the Petitioner. That no previous litigation has taken place between the parties to
this Petition.
8) The requisite court fees amount is fixed and paid.
9) This Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this Petition as the marriage was
solemnized at Ram Vatika, Thiruvananthapuram Kerala, the parties last resided together at
M-201, Purana Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (456786), and even presently, the
Respondent is residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
In light of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove, this Hon'ble Court is humbly
prayed to:

PRAYER

15
That the Petitioner, therefore, prays:

a) For the grant of a decree of Divorce in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent;
and
b) For any other relief(s) which the court may deem proper under the circumstances to be
awarded to the Petitioner.

Petitioner

Maya Vinod

THROUGH

Adv Nag Nema,

Advocate

Place: Thiruvananthapuram

Date: 02/09/2023

VERIFICATION

I, Mrs Maya Vinod, state on solemn affirmation that whatever is contained in paragraphs 1 to Para
No. 8 of the Petition is true to my own knowledge.

Signed and verified this 2nd day of September 2023 at Thiruvananthapuram.

PETITIONER

16
5. An Appeal To The High Court

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF ERNAKULAM, KERALA

OS CIVIL COMPLAINT 456/2023

IN THE MATTER OF

MITS (Institute)

Appellants

versus

Raman Saxena

Respondent

Application filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India r/w Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, on behalf of MITS (Institute)

To the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court of Ernakulam, Kerala.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:

1. That the respondent, Mr. Raman Saxena, was appointed as a Lecturer in Mechanical
Engineering at MITS College, Kochi, Kerala, vide an order dated 3 February 2022. The
respondent officially assumed his duties on 1 March 2022.
2. That the initial appointment of the respondent was made on a contractual basis for a period
of one year. Subsequently, the appellant institute extended the respondent's contract by

17
 issuing another appointment letter dated 1 March 2023, thereby appointing the respondent
for an additional two-year period on a contractual basis.
3. That the terms of the extended appointment required the respondent to communicate his
acceptance on or before the end of April 2023. However, the respondent failed to accept the
extended appointment within the stipulated timeframe.
4. That in the absence of the respondent's acceptance, the appellant institute had no choice but
to terminate the respondent's services, which were officially terminated on 30 April 2023.
The institute proceeded to fill the vacant position with another suitable candidate. The
respondent, after the termination of his services, informed the appellant institute of his
unwillingness to accept the job.
5. That, surprisingly, the respondent later filed an appeal before the presiding officer of the
Labour Court, who, to the astonishment of the appellant, allowed the appeal and directed
the appellant institute to pay the respondent his salary, including all allowances, with effect
from 1 September 2023.
6. That the appellant institute is deeply aggrieved by the order of the presiding officer, as it
believes that the decision is erroneous and not in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the appointment.
7. That the appellant firmly contends that the respondent's failure to accept the extended
appointment within the stipulated timeframe and his subsequent appeal are inconsistent
with each other.
8. That the appellant is of the view that the presiding officer's order is unjust and needs to be
reviewed and set aside. The appellant institute is committed to ensuring the fair and lawful
implementation of its employment contracts and procedures.
9. That, therefore, the appellant institutes this appeal before this Hon'ble High Court, seeking
justice and redress against the order passed by the presiding officer in favour of the
respondent.
10. That the appellant is ready and willing to comply with any conditions or orders that this
Hon'ble High Court may issue in connection with this appeal.

18
That the appellant prays for the appeal to be allowed and for the order of the presiding officer to be
set aside. Further, the appellant also prays for any other relief that this Hon'ble High Court may
deem fit and just in the circumstances of the case.

VERIFICATION

We, state on solemn affirmation that whatever is contained in paragraphs 1 to Para No 10 of the
complaint is true to our own knowledge. We request the Honourable High Court of Ernakulam ,
Kerala, to pass an order to set aside past orders on these matters.

Vice-Chancellor of MITS

MITS (Institute)

Complainant

Through Appellant’s Counsel

Adv. Jayanti Kishore

Place: Kochi

Date: 10/09/2023

19
6. Complaint Under Section 500 Of IPC

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE OF KOCHI, AT

ERNAKULAM, KERALA

CASE NO. CC 873/ 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

Dr. Basil Joesph, S/o Joseph Martin, residing at Lily Cottage, Apollo Towers, PMG Road,
Ernakulam, Kerala - 678912

Complainant

Versus

Ms Azin Parveen D/o Parveen Shahnaz, residing at Summer-time, Nila Nagar, Kochi, Kerala-
678231

Accused

Charge under Section 500 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE,

Before Your Honour, the humble petition of complaint of the Complainant mentioned above.

The Complainant named above, humbly submit:

1. That, the Complainant is a bona fide “citizen of India” having a permanent residence Lily
Cottage, Apollo Towers, PMG Road, Ernakulam, Kerala, is well known in technical
educational steam not just in Kochi but worldwide for his research and contributions in
educational works.
20
2. That, the complainant has been serving in the Technical Education Department for the past
25 years, and he is currently employed as an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering
at Government Polytechnic, Kochi. He has diligently and honestly discharged his duties
during his tenure at the institute.
3. That, this complaint is filed under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the
accused, Ms Azin Parveen, who is also employed in the same educational institution,
Government Polytechnic, Pune, as a Lecturer in Physics.
4. That the complainant, Dr. Basil Joesph, is also employed at the same educational
institution, Government Polytechnic, Kochi, as a Lecturer in Physics.
5. That the accused, with malicious intent and ulterior motives, falsely lodged a complaint
against the complainant before the Principal of the institute and the local police. The
complaint alleged that complainant had engaged in inappropriate and offensive behaviour
by teasing accused. However, it is essential to highlight that the allegations made by the
accused were entirely baseless and unsubstantiated. An inquiry was conducted into the
matter, and no evidence or witnesses were found to support the false allegations made by
the accused.
6. That, apart from the false complaint, the accused has engaged in further malicious actions
aimed at defaming the complainant’s character and causing harm to his reputation. The
accused resorted to writing anonymous letters with defamatory content that was intended to
tarnish the complainant’s image among his colleagues and students.
7. That these baseless allegations and defamatory actions by the accused have caused the
complainant immense mental anguish, embarrassment, and damage to his personal and
professional reputation. Complainant has suffered great harm due to these false accusations
and malicious intent of the accused.
8. That, the actions of the accused are not only legally reprehensible but also against the
principles of justice, fairness, and truthfulness.
9. That, therefore, the complainant humbly prays before this Hon'ble Court to take cognizance
of this complaint and initiate proceedings against the accused, Ms Azin Parveen, under
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the offence of defamation.
10. That complainant is ready and willing to cooperate with the legal proceedings and provide
all necessary evidence and witnesses in support of this complaint.

21
It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Learned Court may graciously be pleased to take
cognizance of the offence alleged and issue process against the accused under Section 500 of the
I.P.C and in the event of appearance of the accused try, convict and sentence the accused as per
law and justice and further be pleased to pass further orders of adequate compensation under
Section 357 and of Costs of the litigation under Section 359 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
against the accused and in favour of the petitioner company and further be pleased to pass such
other order or orders that Your Honour may think fit and proper in the interest of justice.

Dr. Basil Joesph

Complainant

Through his Counsel

Adv. Jayalakshmi. L

Place: Kochi

Date: 22/01/2023

22
7. Application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code

BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT OF

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA

IN THE MATTER OF

Devan Kumar Applicant

versus

State of Kerala Respondent

FIR Number: 567 OF 2023

Under Section: 306 of INDIAN PENAL CODE

Police Station: Pettan Police Station, Trivandrum, Police Station

Application U/S 438 CrPC for Grant of Anticipatory Bail on Behalf of Devdutt Kumar

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:

1. That, during the election campaign for of 2023 took place in Trivandrum Kerala, numerous
allegations were levelled against the defendant by members of opposing parties in an
attempt to tarnish the reputation of the defendant and defeat his candidature. The election
campaign was highly competitive and charged with political rivalry. Unfortunately, one of
the active members of the opposing party, the Late Mr Santosh Kumar, lost his life under
tragic circumstances.
2. That, the defendant strongly believes they have been falsely implicated in the unfortunate
demise of Mr Santosh Kumar due to political vendetta. They have consistently maintained
lawful conduct throughout their history, refraining from engaging in unlawful activities or
23
 violent acts. Given the heightened political tensions during the campaign and the political
influence of certain opposition members, there is a genuine concern that the defendant may
be arrested without a fair investigation and substantial evidence.
3. That the present FIR has been registered on false and bogus facts. The facts stated in the
FIR are fabricated, concocted and without any basis. The police have falsely implicated the
applicant in the present case, the applicant is a respectable citizen of the society and is not
involved in any criminal case.
4. That the facts stated in the complainant against the applicant are civil disputes and does not
constitute any criminal offense at all. The applicant is not required in any kind of
investigation nor any kind of custodial interrogation is required.
5. That the applicant is having very good antecedents, he belongs to a good family and there is
no criminal case pending against them.
6. That the applicant is a permanent resident and there are no chances of his absconding from
the course of justice.
7. That the applicant undertakes to present himself before the police/court as and when
directed.
8. That the applicant pledges not to use any kind of inducement, threat or promise wither
directly or indirectly, to discourage individuals with knowledge of the case from revealing
the facts to the Court or to any police officer
9. That the applicant further undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or the witnesses in
any manner.
10. That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
11. That the applicant is ready and willing to accept any other conditions as may be imposed by
the Court or the police in connection with the case.
12. That the Court below has failed to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and
has wrongly dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

It is therefore prayed that the court may direct the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his
arrest by the police.

24
Any other order which the court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may be also passed in favour of the applicant.

Devan Kumar

R/o B-21, Naya Road, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

Through his Counsel

Adv. Jayakrishnan Kumar

Date: 02/09/2023

At: Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.

25
8. Complaint In The Consumer Forum
CONSUMER COMPLAINT

BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA

In re: Complaint No. 27 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

Complainant:- Mrs Sarla Devi w/o Vikas Kumar, age about 30 years, r/o B-47, Kila gate
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala ,474005

Versus

Respondent:- M/s Digital Shop r/o Shop no. 15 at Sarafa Bazar, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala,474005 .

Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Respectfully showeth:

1. That the complainant is a Housewife residing at B-47 Kila gate Thiruvananthapuram,

Kerala. In order to meet her household needs she purchased a washing machine for
household use from the respondent.
2. That the complainant purchased a washing machine of LG Company from the respondent
as per the invoice no. 201 dated 10th April, 2023 for Rs. 18,000 the payment of the
washing machine was made through hard cash.
3. That as per the terms and conditions contained in the warranty card, Invoice the
respondent is to render free service for one year in relation to said purchased washing
machine.
26
4. That after purchasing a washing machine about four months later there was a problem
with the washing machine.
5. That vide letter dated 20th October 2023 the complainant requested the respondent to
provide repairs for the washing machine. Due to the malfunctioning of the washing
machine there was irritation and stubborn in the studies of the complainant.
6. That the complainant visited the showroom of respondent and during discussion the
respondent flatly denied to provide any service for the said washing machine. In fact, the
respondent was very rude with the complainant and abused her as well.
7. That the respondents have refused to provide service as per the terms and conditions
stipulated in the warranty card. The complainant has no other option but to file the
present complaint.
8. That the respondents have refused to take back the washing machine. The respondent is
liable to refund the price of washing machine and compensation towards harassment,
troubles, physical inconvenience, financial loss suffered by complainant on account of
breach of agreement, breach of warranty, breach of duty on the part of respondent,
complainant claims sum of Rs. 1,00,000.
9. That the complainant is filed within the limitation.

10. PRAYER CLAUSE

It is therefore respectfully prayed before this honorable forum that the respondent be
directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 due to deficiency in the service.
The Court may grant such other reliefs which this honorable forum deems fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case.

Place- Thiruvananthapuram

Dated- 5th April, 2023

27
 Verification

I, Mrs. Sarla Devi, 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 at Thiruvananthapuram on the day of 5th April, 2023

Complainant

28
9. Application For An Interim Injunction

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA

Civil Suit No. 789 /2023

Mr Anil Kumar S/O Raghav Kumar, aged about 44 years, resident of KBRA-171, SR Nagar,
Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (678543)

Plaintiff

Versus

Mr Ankith Sunil S/O Sunil Raj, aged about 48years, resident of SVR-121, SR Nagar,
Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (678543)

Defendants

APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151
of CPC.

The plaintiff above named submits this application, praying to state as follows :

1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition.
2. That it is the case of this plaintiff that the suit property being ancestral, it is held by
the defendant as a Karta of the family consisting of the plaintiff and the defendants.
3. That the plaintiff submits that they formally requested a partition of their ancestral
home, yet the defendant declined this request and in a coercive manner, verbally
abused the plaintiff. Furthermore, the defendant threatened physical harm, cautioning
that any attempt by the plaintiff to access the property in question would result in

29
 severe physical violence. Subsequently, the defendants have consistently obstructed
the plaintiff from exercising their joint rights to enjoy the property.
4. That the plaintiff also submits that it may take a considerable time for the final
decision in this suit, and there being no other source of income to this plaintiff save
and except the suit property, the family of the plaintiff would be subjected to suffer
severe hardships, and hence, this application.
5. That the plaintiff is sanguine about the success of this suit in his favour.
6. That the plaintiff, therefore, prays that during the pendency of this suit, an ad interim
injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in his enjoyment of
the suit property is kindly issued against the defendants.
7. The requisite court fees of 5% of the market value of the said property are duly paid.
8. That an affidavit in support hereof is filed herewith.

Plaintiff: Anil Kumar

Place: Thiruvananthapuram,

Date: 02/09/2023

Adv. Girish. V. Nair

Advocate for Plaintiff

30
 AFFIDAVIT

I, Anil Kumar, the present plaintiff, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as follows:

1. The property described in para 2 of the plaint originally belonged to Grandfather, who
died in 19th May 2020, and on his death, the suit property came to be devolved upon
the family of the plaintiff and the defendants, and since then, the defendant has been
managing the suit property as a Karta of the joint family.
2. That since last one and a half years, the relationship between the plaintiff’s wife and
the defendant's wife is so strained that there have been frequent quarrels, and it has
finally become necessary for the plaintiff to live apart.
3. That the plaintiff accordingly called upon the defendant, on to effect partition, but he
refused to do so.
4. That the plaintiff submits that the defendants have been obstructing this plaintiff in his
enjoyment of the suit property along with them, and this plaintiff has no other source
of income except and save the suit property.
5. That the plaintiff, therefore, served upon the defendants a notice, dated 02/07/2023,
calling upon them to effect partition, but the defendant, once again, refused to do so,
and hence, this suit.
6. That the plaintiff and the defendants are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu
Law, and accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to one-fourth share in the suit property.

WHATEVER stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and so
I have signed here under at Kerala High Court,

PLAINTIFF

31
10. Writ Petition on Habeas Corpus as per Article 226 of Indian Constitution

IN THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF ERNAKULAM, KERALA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. OF 2022

(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

In The Matter Of Mr Ram Kumar S/O Shyam Kumar, aged about 34 years, resident of B-21,
Naya Road, city of Ernakulam, Kerala (876576)

PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. STATE GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT KERALA

RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ERNAKULAM

RESPONDENT NO. 2

3. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL ERNAKULAM

RESPONDENT NO. 3

32
Writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of India praying inter alia for issuing writ of
habeas corpus to respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 thereby quashing the impugned order and
directing the release of the petitioner and granting reasonable compensation to the petitioner

To,

The Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court,

And His Companion Judges of the

Hon'ble High Court of Ernakulam

The humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

1. That the Petitioner is filing the present writ petition under article 226 of the
constitution of India praying inter alia for issuing writ of habeas corpus to respondent
no. 1, 2 and 3 thereby quashing the impugned order and directing the release of the
petitioner and granting reasonable compensation to the petitioner.
2. That the petitioner resides in B-21, Naya Road, city of Ernakulam, Kerala (876576)
and has been a law-abiding citizen of India.
3. That on the 2nd day of June 2023 the Petitioner was arrested and detained for a period
of 2 months in the Central Jail, Ernakulam, wherein Respondent No. 3 is the
Superintendent, with an order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 2 June 2023 under the
National Security Act, 1980. A copy of the order by the Respondent No. 1 has been
annexed herewith as Annexure 1.
4. That, on the date of getting detained and arrested in the Central Jail. The Petitioner was
not informed about the grounds of his detention by Respondent No. 3.
5. That after Ten days of getting arrested and detained, the Petitioner was informed of his
ground of arrest and detention.
6. The report of the ground of detention was furnished to the Petitioner in English, which
is not understood by the Petitioner.
7. The Petitioner's father is interested in the release of the Petitioner from the detention.
8. That the Petitioners have no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Hon'ble
Court by way of this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. That the Petitioners have not filed any other petition or preceding in any court or
tribunal throughout the territory of India regarding the matter.

33
 10. Therefore, the order by Respondent No. 1 dated 2 June 2023, is illegal, arbitrary and
with lack of jurisdiction because of the following grounds given below:-
Grounds:

The present Writ Petition is being filed on the following, amongst other, grounds
without prejudice to each other;

a. Because the grounds of detention were furnished to the Petitioner after

prolonged delay.
b. Because the Petitioner's detention is violative of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
c. Because the grounds of detention of the Petitioner was given in English, which
is not comprehensible for the Petitioner.
d. Because he grounds of detention is very arbitrary and vague.

Prayers

In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

1. Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Respondent 1 to 3 thereby quashing the

impugned order;
2. Issue an appropriate Writ Directing release of the Petitioner;
3. Issue appropriate Writ granting reasonable compensation to the Petitioner;
4. Any other relief, order or direction this court may deem fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of this case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL
EVER PRAY.

FILED BY:

Adv. Anil Kumar

34
Advocate for the Petitioner

Drawn on: 02/09/2023

Drawn by: Adv Anil Kumarx

Ernakulam

Date: 02/09/2023

35
 11. SLP Under Article 136 Of Indian Constitution

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[S.C.R., Order XXI Rule 3(1) (a)]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 2(1)

S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 271919 OF 2020

(Against the impugned judgment and the final order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala at Kerala in the Ker..Cr.C. No.25278/2022)

BETWEEN

In the Hon’ble High Court | In this Hon’ble Court

Krishna Kumar S/o Anand Kumar

R/o U-12 Green World, Blue Street, Ernakulam, Kerala(653211)

(Petitioner)

Versus

The State of Kerala through Police Station Kadavantra, Ernakulam, Kerala

(Respondent)

TO

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE

36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE-NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the petitioner is filing this Special Leave Petition against the impugned order and
final order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
Ker..Cr.C. No.25278/2022 whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the
Anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner.
2. Questions Of Law:
a. Whether the denial of the bail application was in accordance with the legal
precedents laid down by this Hon’ble court?
b. Whether the Hon’ble High Court disregarded the fact that the matter has been
resolved between the parties and, primarily of a civil nature not requiring criminal
proceedings?
c. Whether the Hon’ble High Court, fail to appreciate that the petitioner had not
committed any offence nor conspired to attempt the act as alleged in the complaint?
d. Whether the Hon’ble High Court erred by neglecting the established principles of
anticipatory bail jurisprudence, indicating that the petitioner is unlikely to abscond
or misuse his liberty while on bail?
3. Declaration In Terms Of Rule 3(2): The petitioner states that no other petition seeking
leave to appeal has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and order dated
15.08.2023 passed by the High court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Ker..Cr.C.
No.25278/2022.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5: The Annexure P-1 and P-2 filed along
with the Special Leave Petition are the true copies of the pleadings/documents which
formed part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against whose
order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
5. Grounds: Leave to appeal is sought for on inter alia, the following grounds.
a. Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in taking into account that the basis, the
documents prima facie, the petitioner has not committed any offense as alleged
against him.
b. Because the Hon’ble High Court ignored that the petitioner is innocent and has been
falsely roped in the entire case.

37
 c. Because the Hon’ble High Court erred in noticing that there is no ingredient
implicating the petitioner in the constitution of the alleged offense. And that no iota
of evidence has been put on record to make out a case against the petitioner.
6. Grounds For Interim Relief:
a. That the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions that this Hon’ble court
may impose while granting the benefit of bail.
b. That the petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause
title where he has both movable and immovable properties, and there is no chance
of him absconding.
c. That the petitioner has a good prima facie case, and the balance of convenience lies
in his favour.
7. Main Prayer:
a. Grant a Special leave to appeal against the impugned order and final order dated
15.08.2023 passed by the High court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Ker..Cr.C..
No.25278/2022.
b. Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Interim Relief:
a. Grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Ld. Session Judge,
Ernakulam, Kerala during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition.
b. Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER / APPLICANT AS IN DUTY

BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

Filed by: Girish. V. Nair

Advocate-on-Record for the Petitioners

Place: New Delhi

Drawn on: 11/06/2023

Filed on: 26/12/2020

38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 271919 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF;

Krishna Kumar …Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Kerala …Respondent

CERTIFICATE

It is to certify that this Special Leave Petition is confined only to the pleadings before the
High Court of Kerala whose order is challenged, and the documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional/new facts, documents, or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in this Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/annexure
attached to this Petition are required to answer the question of law raised in the petition or to
make out grounds urged in this Petition for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This
Certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the Petitioner person authorized
by the Petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the SLP.

02/09/2023

New Delhi

Advocate Girish. V. Nair

39
 12. Execution Petition For Money Decree

EXECUTION PETITION FOR MONEY RECOVERY DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE CITY CIVIL COURT BANGALORE, AT

BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

Execution Petition NO. of 567 of 2023

In

Civil Suit NO. of 5671 of 2023

Ms Meena Gupta D/o. Mr Ramlal Gupta, Aged about 30 years, R/o. E-52, Naya Nagar,
Bangalore, Karnataka (767676)

(Decree Holders)

Versus

Ram Babu Sharma, S/o. Vinod Babu Sharma, Aged about 49 years, R/o. R-45 Thatipur,
Bangalore Karnataka (765556)

(Judgment Debtor)

THE DECREE HOLDER PRAYS FOR EXECUTION UNDER ORDER XXI Rule 10 CPC
OF THE DECREE/ORDER DATED 02/09/2023, THE PARTICULARS WHEREOF ARE
STATED IN THE COLUMNS HEREUNDER:-

40
S. No. Particulars Details

1. No. of Suit 5671 of 2023

2. Name of Parties Ms Meena Gupta- (Decree Holder/ Plaintiff)

Ram Babu Sharma- (Judgement debtor/

Defendant)

3. Date of Decree/order of 08/08/2023

which execution is sought

4. Whether an appeal was No

filed against the
decree/order under
execution

5. Whether any payment has None

been received towards
satisfaction of the decree
order

6. Whether any application No

was made previous to this
and if so their dates and
results

7. Amount of suit along 1) Principal Amount: Rs10,00,000/-

with interest as per decree 2) Interest
or any other relief granted a) Interest @ 20% P.A. till date of
by the decree the decree passed- Rs 3,50,000/-
b) Interest @ 20% P.A. till date of
payment from the date the court
passed the decree Rs16,000

41
 8. Amount of costs if Rs 25,000/-
allowed by Court

9. Against whom execution Against the Defendant i.e., Ram Babu Sharma
is sought

10. In what manner court’s To direct the defendant to pay the amount as
assistance is sought directed by the court in its decree or grant to the
plaintiff to sell the movable property of the
defendant in order to recover the amount.

The Decree Holder humbly prays that:

When attachment as the sale of movable property is sought: I pray that the total
amount of Rs. 3,91,000 (three lakhs ninety-one thousand) (together with interest on
the principal sum up to date of payment) and the costs of taking out this execution, be
realised by attachment and sale of defendant's movable property as per annexed list
and paid to me.

When attachment and sale of immovable property are sought: I pray that the total
amount of Rs 10,00,000 (rupees ten lakhs)(together with interest on the principal sum
up to date of payment) and the costs of taking out this execution be realized by the
attachment and sale of defendant's immovable property specified at the foot of this
application and paid to me.

Ms. Meena Gupta

Decree holder

Dated 02 September 2023

Description and Specification of Property

42
The undivided one-third share of the judgment-debtor in a house situated in the B-92, Patel
Nagar, Bangalore Karnataka (678098), value Rs. 45,00,000/- and bounded as follows:--

North- House No. B-91, Patel Nagar, Bangalore Karnataka (678098)

South- B-93, Patel Nagar, Bangalore Karnataka (678098)

East- Peepal Tree

West- Subhash Marg Main Road

Verification

I, Meena Gupta D/o. Mr Ramlal Gupta, Aged about 30 years, R/o. E-52, Naya Nagar,
Bangalore, Karnataka (767676) declare that what is stated in the above description is true to
the best of my knowledge and belief, and so far as I have been able to ascertain the interest of
the defendant in the property therein specified.

Place: Bangalore

Dated: 02/09/2023

Through

AdvNag Nema

Advocate

43
 13. Writ Petition As Per Article 32 Of Indian Constitution On The Ground Of Sustainable
Ground

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 456 OF 2023

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

Suresh Kumar

Versus

Municipal Corporation of Kerala

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE

OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of
India.

The Petitioner above named most respectfully submits as follows:

1. The Petitioner, Suresh Kumar, an Indian citizen residing at L-1 Vikas Nagar,
Trivandrum (736578), is deeply concerned about the protection of the environment
and the imperative need for sustainable development in our nation.
2. The Respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, is a
governmental authority entrusted with the responsibility of working to save the
environment as one of its functions and is accountable for the implementation of
policies and measures pertaining to sustainable development.

44
3. The Petitioner has come to know that to provide specific details regarding the actions,
the dumping of city waste in the river of Vani and raising issue of not just
sustainability but diseases, pollution etc.
4. The Petitioner submits that the current situation presents a grave threat to the
principles of sustainable development enshrined in the Constitution of India, which
obligates the State and its authorities to safeguard and protect the environment for the
present and future generations.
5. The Petitioner submits that the unsustainable actions of the Respondent have resulted
in pollution of the Vani River and the spread of diseases in the area surrounding that
river.
6. The Petitioner submits that, in light of the critical need to address these concerns,
there exists a compelling case for judicial intervention to ensure compliance with
constitutional obligations for sustainable development.
7. The Petitioner submits that, despite efforts and appeals for corrective actions, the
Respondent has not taken adequate steps to rectify the situation, and the urgency of
the matter necessitates the intervention of this Hon’ble Court.
8. The Petitioner submits that the principles of sustainable development, as recognized
globally and enshrined in various international agreements and treaties, necessitate
immediate and effective action by the Respondent.
9. The Petitioner submits that the prevailing circumstances require an urgent and
comprehensive assessment of the Respondent's actions and policies to ensure that they
align with the principles of sustainability and the constitutional mandate.
10. The Petitioner submits that sustainable development is not just a matter of policy but a
fundamental right, and the State's duty to protect and preserve it is non-negotiable.
11. The Petitioner submits that the current situation warrants the issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus to compel the Respondent to take immediate and concrete
measures to rectify the violations of sustainability principles and ensure a sustainable
future for our nation.
12. The Petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court's intervention is imperative to secure
the rights of the present and future generations to a clean and sustainable
environment.
13. The Petitioner submits the requisite court fees of Rs 500 have duly paid
14. The Petitioner therefore prays for the following reliefs:

45
 a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to take necessary
and effective steps for sustainable development, including but not limited to, issuing
direction to stop the Respondent from dumping of waste in Vani River, to provide
health relief to the affected and provide monetary compensation which the court
deems fit and to rejuvenate the Vani river.
b. Pass such other orders or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case to ensure the realization of the principles of
sustainable development.
The Petitioner further declares that no other writ petition on the same subject matter has been
filed by him/her before any court or tribunal in India.

The Petitioner further declares that he/she has not filed any other writ petition on the same
subject matter before this Hon’ble Court.

The Petitioner further declares that he/she has not concealed any material fact from this
Hon’ble Court.

The Petitioner further declares that he/she has not made any false statement in this petition.

The Petitioner therefore prays for leave to file this petition.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted.

Place: Supreme Court of New Delhi

Date: 2 September 2023

Suresh Kumar

L-1 Vikas Nagar, Trivandrum

Kerala (736578)

[email protected]

345097-76567

46
 14. Legal Notice under Section 138 Of NI Act.

Legal Notice

To

Prem Sharma

B-21

SECTOR- U,

New Delhi (65839)

Sub.:- Legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Sir,

Under the instructions and authority from our client Mr Manish Raj having their office at D-
45, Rajeev Chowk, New Delhi (739648), we serve upon you the following notice of demand
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The cheque no. 345678909876 dated 15 July 2023 for an amount of 85,000 (rupees eighty-
five thousand only) drawn on the SBI Rajeev Chowk Branch, was issued by you in lieu of
discharge of your financial liabilities to us.

The said cheque was presented for payment, but the same has been returned by your bank
with the endorsement of Insufficient funds. The Bank has informed us through their cheque
return memo dated 22 July 2023. This fact was brought to your notice by our client vide letter
dated 30 July 2023.

That spite of many telephonic reminders and personal visits by the representative of our client
to your office, you failed to make the payment due to our client.

47
You are now requested to make the payment of the above-said amount immediately in
accordance with the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act failing which
we criminal proceedings will be initiated against you as contemplated under the above-said
section in the courts of Delhi.

This is without prejudice to all other legal rights and remedies available to our client for the
above-stated purpose.

Kindly take notice.

Sincerely

Advocate Nema Singh

On behalf of

Manju Chaturvedi

D-45

Shubhash Chowk

Date- 2 September 2023

48
 15. Special Power Of Attorney In Favor Of Promoters And Builders

Power of Attorney

To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, I, Mr Anil Kumar residing at D-45, Rajeev
Chowk, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (739648)

Whereas I am the owner of an immovable property consisting of a plot of land situated at B-

21 SECTOR- U, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (739648) and which is more particularly
described in the Schedule hereunder written and is held by us, being within ceiling limit.

Whereas I have agreed to sell the said land to M/s ASTOR Co. by an agreement bearing date
19 August 2023 with a right to develop the said land by constructing thereon a new building
with flats and other premises therein on ownership basis, before the sale or transfer Is
completed in favor of the said Developers or their nominees including a co-operative housing
society or limited company that may be formed by the purchasers of flats and other premises
therein, as the said Developers may desire and which they have agreed to do on their account
and at their own risk.

And Whereas the said land will continue to be of my ownership until the Deed of Transfer is
executed, the Developers have requested us to execute a power of attorney in favour of their
nominee or nominees and they have nominated Mr Arjun AL, Resident of B-21, Shashti
Marh, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (648363) for this purpose.

And Whereas I, therefore, propose to appoint the said Mr. Arjun ALas my Attorneys or
agents with full power to do and execute the following acts, deeds and things, on my behalf
and in my name and which the said attorneys have agreed to do.

NOW THEREFORE KNOW YOU ALL AND THESE PRESENTS WITNESS that I, hereby
jointly and severally appoint the said Mr. Arjun AL to be my true and lawful attorneys with
full authority and power to do and execute jointly and severally all acts, deeds and things
mentioned below for us and on my behalf and in my names viz.

1) To apply to the Competent Authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)
Act. 1999 for grant of permission under sections 20, 21 or 22 of that Act if any
required to develop the said land by constructing a new building and for that purpose
to sign all applications and other papers, to appear before the Competent Authority

49
 and to give him all the papers and information as required and to do all acts and things
necessary for the purpose of obtaining such permission.
2) To appoint an architect and to get the plans of the proposed building sanctioned by the
Municipal Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram and other authorities concerned in
respect of the new buildings proposed to be constructed thereon.
3) To prepare the building plans with the help of the Architect for the new building
proposed to be constructed on the said land under the present development rules.
4) To make necessary applications to and sign all papers, to appear before, the Municipal
Authorities, to pay necessary fees and premiums required for getting the plans
sanctioned and to do all other acts and things as may be necessary for getting the
plans of the proposed building sanctioned by the Municipal and other authorities.
5) To apply for and obtain an I.O.D. and Commencement Certificate for construction of
the Building from the Municipal authorities and for that purpose to sign applications
and other papers. to pay necessary fees and do all other acts and things necessary for
that purpose and In that behalf.
6) To appear before any officer or authority of the Govt. or Municipal Corporation or
under the Urban Land (C&R) Act, 1999 or under the Income Tax Act or any other
Act, to represent the matters regarding the proposed development of the said land.
7) To apply for and obtain permission for water supply, electricity supply, laying down
drainage and for other amenities as are generally required for a building.
8) To obtain occupation and completion certificate from the Municipal Corporation after
the building is completed in all respects.
9) To pay any deposits and pay moneys required to be deposited with the Municipal and
other authorities for getting the plans sanctioned and for getting any water or electric
and other conveniences necessary and to withdraw such deposits which are
refundable.
10) To execute the deed of conveyance in respect of the said plot of land in favor of such
person as the said Developers may desire including a Co-operative housing society or
limited company and to do all other things required to complete the transfer of the
said land on my behalf.
11) If any legal proceedings are required to be taken In connection with the work of
development or to assert or establish my right of ownership to the said land or if any
legal action is taken against us in connection with the said plot or proposed
construction, to prosecute and defend such legal proceedings and for that purpose to

50
 sign, declare and file all pleadings, affidavits, applications and other papers. to engage
advocate or advocates and to file one or more appeals against any decision and to do
all acts and things required to be done in that behalf
12) To pay all the municipal and other taxes relating to the said property payable until the
completion of the building.
13) To get a co-operative society of the flat purchasers in the said building registered
under the Co-operative Societies Act and for that purpose to get necessary forms, and
applications signed by all the purchasers of flats and other premises and to file the
same with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and to do all other acts and things
necessary for registration of the society and to obtain registration certificate.
14) To do generally all other acts and things as are necessary or are required to be done
for the development of the said property by constructing a building on a flat
ownership basis, in all respects in terms of the said agreement.

AND I agree to ratify all acts and things lawfully done by the said Attorneys by exercise of
the powers herein contained. AND I declare that this power of attorney Is given on condition
that all the expenses required to be incurred In exercising any of the powers given
hereinabove will be the responsibility of the said attorneys or the developers and I will not be
responsible for the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mr Anil Kumar has put my hand on this the 2 day of September
2023.

Signed and delivered

In the presence of Mr Ramesh Kumar resident of L-1 Vikas Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram,

Kerala (45364)

Before Me

Advocate Arjun AL

Identified by me

51