Five-Year Integrated Law Programme

B.COM LL. B (HONS.)

Batch:2017-2022

Academic Year: 2021-22

IL -505 Drafting, Pleading and Conveyance

SEMESTER IX

NAME OF THE STUDENT: AARSH R.

MODI ROLL NO: 08

DR.K.C. RAVAL

CO-ORDINATOR

CENTRE OF

EXCELLENCE,

SCHOOL OF LAW,

GUJARAT UNIVERSITY
1
 Evaluation By

_ _

DR.K.C.RAVAL
CO-ORDINATOR
CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE

2
 INDEX

Unit: 1 Civil Drafting

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

1.1 First appeal 6-8

1.2 Civil application for stay 9-11

1.3 Temporary Injunction 12-13

1.4 Written Statement 14-15

1.5 Appeal from order 16-26

1.6 Second Appeal 27-30

1.7 Order for transmission of summons to be served on a 31-31

prisoner

1.8 Order for transmission of summons to be served on a 32-32

public servant or soldier

3
Unit: 2 Criminal Drafting

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

2.1 Criminal Complaint 34-37

2.2 Special Leave Petition (SLP) 38-43

2.3 Application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of 44-46

the crpc

2.4 Criminal Revision 47-51

2.5 Writ of Habeas Corpus 52-56

2.6 Application U/S. 437 OF CR. PC for grant of Bail 57-60

2.7 Application Under Section 438 OF CR. P. C. for 61-64

Anticipatory bail

Unit: 3 Conveyance Deeds

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

3.1 Will 66-67

3.2 Codicil 68-68

3.3 Agreement to sell 69-70

3.4 Gift Deed 71-72

3.5 Rent Note 73-73

3.6 General Power of Attorney 74-76

3.7 Special Power of Attorney 77-77

4
 3.8 Deed of Dissolution 78-78

Unit: 4 Miscellaneous

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

4.1 Model Arbitration Clause Agreement 80-82

4.2 Caveat Application 83-84

4.3 Complaint U/S 138 OF Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 85-88

4.4 Consumer complaint 89-94

4.5 Notice U/S 138 OF Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 95-96

4.6 Appeal and revisiom before consumer commision 97-104

4.7 Writ of Mandamus 105-119

5
UNIT: 1 CIVIL DRAFTING
1.1 FIRST APPEAL
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL SUIT NO 1234 OF 2021
(UNDER ORDER 41 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE)

District: Ahmedabad

Ramakant Bhai, aged 65

years, Residing at shivalik
bills,
Ahmedabad:480041 …….Appellant

Versus

Suresh Bhai, aged 45 years,

Residing at billadibaug,
Ahmedabad:560931 ……. Respondent

Appeal under order 41 read along with section 96 of the civil procedure

code,1908 To,
The the hon'ble judge of the city civil court at

Ahmedabad, The appellant most respectfully sheweth as

under that,

6
The present Appellant has been constrained to file the present appeal before the city
civil court under the civil suit under order 42 read with section 96 of the CPC being
aggrieved

7
by the order dated 4-3-2019 passed by the learned judge who ordered the present
Appellant to execute the sale deed in favor of the original plaintiff. The copy of the order
has been hereby attached under annexure A.

Brief facts:

The contract of specific performance was entered into by the defendant and the plaintiff.
Where in a suit was filed by the plaintiff. In the alternative, the plaintiff has however
prayed here who is the original defendant for damages worth RS 10000 form the
defendant alleging the breach of contract.

The learned judge had thereby passed a judgement that the defendant shall execute a sale
deed in favor of the original plaintiff.

There by being aggrieved by the said order the present appeal has been filed under order
41 read along with section 96 of CPC.

Grounds:

It is most respectfully submitted that the learned judge has erred in passing the decree for
the suit of specific performance filed.

It shall also be submitted respectfully that the learned judge has erred in law and
principle by dismissing the suit of specific performance by the plaintiff.

That the learned judge has erred in holding some decisions in favor of the defendants.

The learned judge erred in holding that there was nonexistent contract between both
the parties

8
The learned judge has even erred in holding that the plaintiff shall execute the sale deed
of RS 10000.

It is humbly submitted that the order suffers from the following default which the
appellant shall provide:
● The facts of the parties have not been appreciated by the court and the court
has decided the case.
● The court has erred in law by passing such an order
● The suit cannot be bared in ground of limitation as filed in resonable time
● The court has failed to appreciate the nature of relief

That the appellant is a law abiding citizen and peace binding that the court has erred
in passing such an order.

The present order is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside

That the present suit is not pending in the jurisdiction of any other court and this court
shall have the jurisdiction to try the suit

That the order passed is bad in law and thereby preferred to be challenged by the way of
this appeal.

Prayer:
It is most respectfully prayed that,
Order passed by the learned judge may be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be
dismissed with cost,
Any other relief which the court may deem fit be granted for the sake of Justice and
equity.
Ahmedabad Signature
Dated: Advocate for the Appellant

9
1.2 CIVIL APPLICATION FOR STAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO. OF 2021

(FOR STAY)

Ranvirsinh Dilipsinh Rana

Sex: Male

Aged: Adult,

Residing at:

71, Shahibaug Society,

Asharwa,

Ahmedabad. ..Applicant

Versus

Manishaben Natwarlal Prajapati

Sex: Female,

Aged: 27 years,

Residing at:

G-105, Sundarvan Appartment,

Ranip,

Ahmedabad. …Opponent

1
0
To,

The Honourable Chief Justice and other

Honourable Judges of the High Court

of Gujarat, Sola at Ahmedabad.

.
The humble application of the applicant above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and Award dated
06/10/2020 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar in
HMP No. 106/2013 (Old No. 154/2012) passed below Ex.79 in granting
annulment of marriage dated 30/06/2012 between appellant and opponent
herein as been void from inception, the Applicant herein has preferred an First
Appeal challenging the same on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo
of appeal which may be treated as part of this Civil Application.

2. The applicant has a good prima facie case and is likely to succeed in the
appeal. The balance of convenience is also in favor of the applicant and no
irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the respondents if the reliefs sought
in this application are granted. The Applicant states that if the relief sought for
is not granted, it will result in a situation wherein applicant will have to pay
compensation despite here being no fault on part of the applicant. The same
would cause irreparable injury to the Applicant. In the circumstances, the
applicant submits that it would be just, fair and in the interest of justice to grant
the reliefs prayed for.

3. The applicant prays:

A) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal, the Hon’ble Court
be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of and Award

1
dated

1
 06/10/2020 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Gandhinagar in
HMP No. 106/2013 (Old No. 154/2012) passed below Ex.79 in granting
annulment of marriage dated 30/06/2012 between appellant and opponent
herein has been void from inception, the Applicant herein has preferred an First
Appeal challenging the same on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memo
of appeal which may be treated as part of this Civil Application.

B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Appeal, the Hon’ble Court
be pleased to restrain the respondents or any person claiming through or under
them from filing any recovery application;

C) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of the prayer B above;

D) For such other and further 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 APPLICANT SHALL AS IN DUTY

BOUND FOR EVERY PRAY.

Date:

Ahmedabad. Advocate for the Applicant

AFFIDAVIT

I, Ranvirsinh Rana, adult, residing at the address mentioned in the cause title of this
application, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:

I have read and understood the contents of the application memo. Its Paras are true to my
knowledge and belief. Solemnly affirmed on this day of October, 2021 at Ahmedabad.

……………………………….

DEPONENT

1
1.3 TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL SUIT NO 1435 OF 2021
(APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1-
5)

Rama Shah, aged 45

years, Residing at shivalik
villa
Ahmedabad 387622............................................................................................Plaintiff

Versus

Jay Pandya, aged 40 years,

Residing at sarjan vyas,
Ahmedabad 232752..........................................................................................Defendant

Application for temporary injunction under order 39 rule 1-5

To,
The judge of the city civil court,

The plaintiff has respectfully sheweth

that, Brief facts:

It is submitted that on 5-1- 2019 by an agreement in writing by the defendant, he decided
to contract and sell the bunglow to the plaintiff for RS 5000000. An amount of 500000
was paid as earnest money by the present plaintiff.

The plaintiff is ready to perform his duties but he defendant was not willing to carry out
the sale deed thus failed to perform the contract
1
The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance against the defendant and
thereby also laid down that he had a balance of convenience in our favour and that too
has a prima facie case.

Ground:

Over the period that plaintiff realise that the defendant is disposing the property and
thereby the plaintiff thereby submits that the defendant shall be restrained from doing so
otherwise it shall cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in
term of finance and leading to many proceedings.

Prayer:

It was respectfully prayed by the plaintiff that,

Until the suit is finally disposed of the defendant shall be restrained from disposing his
services or transfer the property
Any other relief the court may think fit to be granted.

Signature

Advocate for the Plaintiff

Affidavit

I, Rama Shah, the plaintiff hereby declare that everything mentioned in all the Paras are
true to my knowledge and belief.

………
Plaintiff

1
1.4 WRITTEN STATEMENT

IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT, AT AHMEDABAD

CIVIL SUIT NO 1245 OF 2021
(UNDER ORDER 8 OF THE CPC)

Abdul Razaq, aged 25

years, Residing at sarjan
towers,
Ahmedabad 380762 ……. Plaintiff

Versus

Mohammed ibrahim, aged 36

years, Residing at Abhishek
bunglows,
Ahmedabad 362876 ……. Defendant

Written statement under order 8 of the CPC,1908

To,
The judge of the Hon’ble city civil court,

The aforementioned written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant above-
mentioned,
It is respectfully submitted that everything that has been stated in the plait in paragraph 1-
4 shall be considered to be false and not true to the knowledge of the defendant.

It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that he disagrees that the both had entered into

1
an agreement as avered by the plaintiff in para 1 of the plaintiff to sell a suit property.

1
It has been denied by the defendant that the plaintiff had paid RS 500000 as a amount of
earnest money as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint.

The defendant has denied that the plaintiff has given him RS 2000000 in order to execute
the sale deed as mentioned under para 3 of the plaint. As there was no agreement between
then the question of giving the amount does not arise.

Prayer:

The defendant respectfully prays that:

The plaintiff as does not have a cause of action he is not entitled to any relief claimed in
the plaint and it shall be dismissed with cost.
Any other relief may be granted which the court may think fit

Signature
Advocate for defendant

……………
Defendant

Verification

I, Mohammed Ibrahim, defendant, above-mentioned declare that what is mentioned in the

para 1-4 are true to my knowledge and belief and what is believed to be true.

Signature
Defendant

1
1.5 APPEAL FROM ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: BHARUCH

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. OF 2021

Galababa alias Gulabben Mansang d/o Mansang Jitsing and w/o Himmatsinh
Chhattrasinh (Since Deceased through Legal Heirs)

1. Dipsang Himmatsinh
Raj Male, Aged-Adult,
Muslim

2. Bachubhai Himmatsinh
Raj Male, Aged-Adult Muslim

3. Dariyaba Himamtsinh
Raj Female, Aged-Adult
Muslim

4. Sharifaben Himamtsinh
Raj Female, Aged-Adult
Muslim

All Residing at 40, Rang Avdhut Society,

Juhapura Sarkhej Road, Maktampura,

Ahmedabad . . Appellants.

(Org Applicants)

Versus

1. Saduba widow of Mansang Jitsang

Female, Adult Muslim

1
2. Jibava Mansang Jitsang
Female, Adult Muslim

1
3. Heirs of Naarsang @ Nurbha
Mansang Chanduben Narsang (Also
deceased)

3.1 Kutubuddin Narsang

Male, Adult Muslim

3.2 Rafikbhai Narsang

Male, Adult
Muslim

3.3 Sabbirbhai Narsang

Male, Adult
Muslim

4. Yakubbhai Himmatsinh Raj

Male, Adult Muslim

5. Aarif Aadamvali
Patel Male, Adult
Muslim

6. Kamrujma Abdulkadir Patel

Male, Adult Muslim

7. Soyeb Ahmedali Patel

Male, Adult Muslim

8. Yakub Ibrahim
Guruji Male, Adult
Muslim

Respondent no. 1 to 8 residing at

Moje Vagra Ta. Vagra, District: Bharuch 392140

9. Aiyub Vali Chokvala

1
Male, Adult Muslim

Residing at Mumtazpark,

Bharuch, Ta-District Bharuch

1
 10. Mohammedali Ismail
Munshi Male, Adult Muslim

Hushenisha-1, D-43, Opp Shak

Market, Jambusar Road, Bharuch

11. Faridaben Ishaakbhai

Raj Female, Adult
Muslim

Mu Po Saaran, Ta

Vagra, District Bharuch

12. Administrators of Madresahe Nurul Islam

12.1 Ibrahim Pratapsang
Raj Male, Adult
Muslim

12.2 Jishbha Vakhatsang

Raj Male, Adult
Muslim

12.1 & 12.2 residing at Mu Po Saaran, Ta Vagra, Respondents

District Bharuch (Original Respondents)

APPEAL FROM ORDER UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION

104 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

To

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice

and other Hon’ble Companion

1
Judges of the High Court of Gujarat

Sola at Ahmedabad.

1
The humble appeal of the appellant above named;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT:

1. The present appellants– original plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal from
Order under the provisions of Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the Impugned order dated 08.04.2019
passed below Exh.5 by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in
Special Civil Suit 1/2018 whereby the Learned Judge has rejected the injunction
application preferred by the plaintiff-present appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and
2. It is in this view the present Appeal from Order has been preferred. Annexed
hereto and marked as “Annexure-A Colly” is the copy of application and order
passed below Exh-5.
2. The parties shall be referred to as per the original status in the suit. The present
appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original
defendants in the suit proceedings. Annexed hereto and marked as “Annexure-B”
is the copy of the plaint along with list of documents of Special Civil Suit
no.1/2018
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
3.1 The present appellants are the plaintiffs in the Special Civil Suit no.
1/2018, whereby the original plaintiff has sought for partition of the
subject properties by seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs are the legal
heirs and the pedhinama was falsely prepared which has led to
deprivation of the rights of the plaintiffs and the sale-deeds executed by
the defendant no.1 to 3 in favor of 5 to 12 are not binding on the
appellants to the effect of their share in the subject property.
3.2 The plaintiff has categorically averred in the plaint that the plaintiff that
the defendant no.1 is the wife of the maternal grand-father of the
plaintiffs. The defendant no.2 is the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs and
defendant no.3/1 to 3/3 are the legal heirs of the maternal uncle. The
defendant no. 5 to 12 are the persons in whose favor some of the

1
subject lands are transferred.

1
3.3 The subject land is described in the paragraph-2 of the plaint as the lands
bearing survey no. 481, 490, 1018 paiki 1, 1018 paiki 2, 1300, 1301,
1307(b) situated in Mauje Vagra, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch and the
lands bearing survey no. 16 situated in Mauje Khadkhandali, Taluka
Vagra, District Bharuch.
3.4 It is distinctly mentioned in the plaint that the lands bearing revenue
survey no. 801 and 804 are transferred in the name of the respondent
no.12 against which the plaintiffs are not claiming any reliefs.
3.5 The appellant craves leave to produce the precise chronology of events
which is mentioned in the suit in elaborate manner which led to the filing
of the civil suit and present appeal from order as under

31.05.1989 - The mother of the appellants expired

24.01.1990 - The grandfather of the appellants expired

15.10.1997 - Succession entry 368 came to be entered in the name

of the defendants by overlooking the correct pedhinama

2009 - The petitioners were residing out of village and so came to

know about the mutation of entries at a later stage and so
challenged before Deputy Collector

28.10.2013 -Deputy Collector rejected the appeal on the ground of

delay
21.02.2015 -Collector rejected the appeal without citing any reasons

30.07.2015 -Secretary partly allowed the revision and set aside the
impugned entries and the orders and directed the Collector to look
into the pedhinama and after panchrojkam the names shall be
entered as per the succession.

25.07.2016 -Notices for drawing panchrojkam were issued as per the

order passed by the Secretary

2
 09.12.2016 -The Collector rejected the remand application, in spite of
the fact that there was no adjudication that was to be done by the
Collector on merits but mere drawing of panchrojkam and correct
pedhinama was to be prepared

08.09.2017 -The revision application preferred by the appellants

challenging the order dated 09.12.2016 came to be rejected.

Special Civil Applications being SCA no. 21815 and 21816 of 2017 came to be
preferred before this Honourable High Court challenging the revenue
entries wherein notices have been issued and the same are pending
adjudication before this Honourable Court.

3.6 The plaintiffs have then filed the suit seeking partition of the properties
and also challenging the sale-deeds executed by the defendants without
seeking consent of the plaintiffs to the extent of shares of the plaintiffs
and further a declaration that the documents executed in their absence is
illegal and deserves to be set aside.
3.7 In the said suit the application for injunction below exh-5 seeking
injunction restraining the defendants from creating any further rights in
the subject properties is also filed which came to be rejected by the
Learned Judge and hence the present appeal from order.

4. The appellants have preferred the present appeal from order on the following
amongst other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing

2
 GROUNDS

A. The impugned order passed by the Trial court is erroneous and fails on
the principles of irreparable loss, balance of convenience and hence the
same deserves to be set aside.
B. The appellant respectfully submits that the Trial Court has erred in law
and principle of the grant of injunction without considering the basic
ingredients for refusing such relief in favour of the plaintiff especially
when the revenue authority had directed the verification of the correct
pedhinama and in such proceedings the revenue authorities have failed to
pass appropriate orders and the same is subject matter of challenge before
the Honourable High Court in writ jurisdiction.
C. The impugned order suffers from the following infirmities which the
appellant craves leave to elaborate in the detailed grounds:
a. The Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the parties are
following muslim religion and the Court has decided the
application by considering the 2005 amendment of Hindu
Succession Act.
b. The Court has failed to appreciate the fact that Muslim Law does
not provide for devolution of their rights
c. The mother of the plaintiffs expired prior to the grand-father and
hence the rights of the plaintiff automatically stood generated in
the property.
d. The suit seeking partition cannot be said to be out of limitation as
there is no prescribed period for filing a suit of partition.
e. Partition can be sought for at any time the dispute arises.
f. The plaintiffs have succeeded in the revenue proceedings at one
stage wherein the correct pedhinama was ordered to be prepared
and hence the question of delay would not arise.
D. The Court has failed to appreciate the nature of reliefs and the
controversy involved in the suit wherein the relationship of the plaintiffs
and defendants is not disputed and the suit is being contested merely

2
on the

2
 ground of delay which cannot be made the basis to deny the relief to the
plaintiff especially when the Muslim Law does not permit such waiver of
rights by the parents also which draws its origin from the grand-parents.
The said ground of waiver by the mother of th plaintiffs does not pass the
legal scrutiny of the Muslim Law and especially when the mother had
expired prior to the grandfather and hence the waiver on the part of the
mother would not assist the proceedings in favour of defendant in any
manner.
5. The appellants are having a good prima facie case and there are all chances of
being succeeded in the appeal. The impugned order passed by the Court
below is contrary to the evidence on record, provisions of law, and against
the settled legal position. Hence, the relief as prayed for is required to be
granted in the interest of justice.
6. The appellants crave leave to add, alter, amend, delete and/or rescind any part
of this appeal as and when necessary with kind permission of this
Honourable Court.
7. The appellants have no other alternative efficacious remedy but to approach
this Hon’ble Court by way of the present appeal.
8. The appellants crave leave to produce the relied upon documents by way of
paper-book.
9. On the premises of the above mentioned facts and grounds, the appellants
most respectfully pray as under;

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present appeal from
order;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned order
dated 08.04.2019 passed below Exh.5 by the Learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Bharuch in Special Civil No. 1/2018 and further be pleased to grant the
reliefs as prayed in the said application below Exh-5 by restraining the
defendants-present respondents from transferring, alienating, creating any third
party rights in the

2
 subject property as mentioned in para-2 of the plaint (para-3.3 of the present
appeal from order).
(C) This Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be
deeming just and proper.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE APPLICANTS SHALL
AD IN DUTY BOUND FOR EVER PRAY.

Place: Ahmedabad.

Date : Advocate for Appellants

2
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: BHARUCH

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. OF 2021

Galababa alias Gulabben Mansang d/o Mansang Jitsing and w/o Himmatsinh Chhattrasinh

Appellants.

(Org Plaintiffs)

Versus

Saduba widow of Mansang Jitsang

& Others Respondents

(Original Defendants)

INDEX

Annexure Particulars Page No

Synopsis

Memo of Appeal

A-Colly Copy of application below Exh-5 and

impugned Order

B Copy of Civil suit with documents

Place: Ahmedabad.

Date: Advocate for Appellants

2
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: BHARUCH

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. OF 2021

Galababa alias Gulabben Mansang d/o Mansang Jitsing and w/o Himmatsinh Chhattrasinh
Appellants.

(Org Plaintiffs)

Versus

Saduba widow of Mansang Jitsang

& Others Respondents

(Original Defendants)

SYNOPSIS

The present appellants– original plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal from Order
under the provisions of Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 challenging the Impugned order dated 08.04.2019 passed below Exh.5
by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Special Civil Suit 1/2018
whereby the Learned Judge has rejected the injunction application preferred by the
plaintiff-present appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. It is in this view the present
Appeal from Order has been preferred.

2
1.6 SECOND APPEAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AT AHMEDABAD

CASE NO 1234 OF 2021
UNDER ORDER 42 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE

DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD

Kaushik Bhai, aged 40

years Residing at dandhi
kunj,
Ahmedabad- 389160............................................................................................Appellant

Versus

Kiran Bhai, aged 36 years

Residing at Bharat
residency,
Ahmedabad – 350082........................................................................................Respondent

Appeal no 2244 of

2021 Second appeal under order 42 read with section 100 of the civil procedure code,

1908

To,
The hon'ble judges of the hon'ble High Court of Gujarat,

2
The appellant has most respectfully sheweth as under

that,

The present Appellant has been constrained to file the present second appeal under
order 42 read with section 100 of the cpc being aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned

2
judge terminating the service of the plaintiff via order dated 2-5-2019. The copy of the
order passed by the learned judge has been attached herewith under annexure A.

Brief facts:
The order was passed by the learned judge of the trial court terminating the services of
the present applicant which was illegal, discriminatory and contrary to the law for the
time being in force where in the defendant was carrying out a cloth business thereby this
order leading to permanent injunction thereby restraining him from carrying out his
services. And also ordering to reinstate him with full back wages was illegal and void.

The learned judges passed an order stating that as the plaintiff was a temporary servant
he had no right to hold the post and that the order was legal.

Therefore, being aggrieved by the order of the trial court the present applicant filed an
appeal before the district judge who dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree passed
by the trial court.

Therefore, the present second appeal has been preferred by the present Appellant
challenging the order passed by the district judge via order dated 4-5-2019. Copy of the
order has been attached herewith under annexure B.

Ground:

It is most respectfully submitted that the learned judge has erred in passing the decree for
the termination of the services

It shall also be submitted respectfully that the learned judge has erred in law and principle
by dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the trial court by the plaintiff.

That the learned judge has erred in holding some decisions in favor of the original
defendant.

2
That the learned judges erred in holding that the order of termination was legal.

The learned judge has even erred in holding that the order of termination was not in its
nature punitive.

It is humbly submitted that the order suffers from the following default which the appellant
shall provide:

● The facts of the parties have not been appreciated by the court and the court has
decided the case.
● The court has erred in law by passing such an order.
● The suit cannot be bared in ground of limitation as filed in reasonable time.
● The court has failed to appreciate the nature of relief.

That the appellant is a law abiding citizen and peace binding that the court has erred in
passing such an order.

The present order is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside

That the present suit is not pending in the jurisdiction of any other court and this court
shall have the jurisdiction to try the suit

That the order passed is bad in law and thereby preferred to be challenged by the way of
this appeal.

2
Prayer:

It is most respectfully prayed before the Hon’ble court

that, The appeal may be allowed

The decree passed by the trail court n confirmed by the district judge may be set aside and
the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost

Any other relief the court may deem fit in the lights of Justice and equity may be granted.

Ahmedabad
/ /2021

Signature
Advocate for the Appellant

3
1.7 ORDER FOR TRANSMISSION OF SUMMONS TO BE
SERVED ON A PRISONER
UNDER ORDER 5 RULE 24 OF THE CPC
(SUMMONS TO BE SERVED ON THE
PRISONER)

To

The Superintendent of the Jail at Ahmedabad.

It shall be noted that under the provisions of Order 5, rule 24, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, a summons in duplicate is herewith forwarded for service on the
defendant lakhmikant Singh, aged 36 years, who is a prisoner in jail.

You are requested to cause a copy of the said summons to be served upon the said
defendant and to return the original to this Court signed by the said defendant, with a
statement of service endorsed thereon by you.

Judge,
Ahmedabad,
Dates / /2021

3
1.8 ORDER FOR TRANSMISSION OF SUMMONS TO BE SERVED
ON A PUBLIC SERVANT OR SOLDIER

(UNDER ORDER 5, RULE 27,28)

SUMMONS TO BE SERVED ON THE PUBLIC SERVANT OR SOLDIER

To,

THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,

Under the provisions of Order V, rule 27 (or 28, as the case may be), of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, a summons in duplicate is herewith forwarded for service on the
defendant Ramesh Kumar, aged 26 years who is stated to be serving under you over the
period of time.

You are requested to cause a copy of the said summons to be served upon the said
defendant and to return the original to this Court signed by the said defendant, with
statement of service endorsed thereon by you.

Judge
Ahmedabad
Dates / /2021

3
Unit: 2 Criminal Drafting

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

2.1 Criminal Complaint 32-36

2.2 Special Leave Petition (SLP) 37-42

2.3 Application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of 43-45

the crpc

2.4 Criminal Revision 46-50

2.5 Writ of Habeas Corpus 51-55

2.6 Application U/S. 437 OF CR. PC for grant of Bail 56-59

2.7 Application Under Section 438 OF CR. P. C. for 60-63

Anticipatory bail

3
UNIT 2: CRIMINAL DRAFTING

2.1 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO…… OF 2021

Mr Uvesh Chopra, aged 25,

Son of ABC Chopra,
residing At 64 hirabaug
society,
Ahmedabad-360015...................................................................................Complainant

Versus

Mr Mohammed Ibrahim, aged

30, Son of XYZ Ibrahim, residing
At J5 bhaktinagar society,
Ahmedabad- 380057.........................................................................................Accused

A complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act Respectfully sheweth, before the Hon’ble judge of the court

that,

The complainant herein above-mentioned respectfully submits this complaint praying to

state the following,

3
Brief facts:

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the present complainant who is
residing at the above-mentioned address has been carrying out his business of hardware
in the name and the style of m/s Chopra Enterprise and had been carrying out the
business since a long period of time.

The present accused in the suit residing at the above-mentioned address has been a
customer to the complainant for a long period of 10 years and had been purchasing goods
from time to time.

And due to this relationship over the period of time between the complainant and the
accused the complainant had a bit of faith in the accused in the present case and thereby
used to accept the cheques which were issued by the present accused against the purchase
made by the accused.

And these purchase of goods and issuance of cheques have led to various transaction
between the complainant and the accused. The transaction above mentioned have been
annexed in appendix A.

It is humbly submitted by the present complainant that the above mentioned cheques
when issued by the accused while delivering the goods and materials supplied to him by
the complainant gave a promise that these cheques would be honoured when presented.

But at the time or presentment the above mentioned issued cheques were Dishonored by
the banker of the complainant on the ground that there was insufficient fund in the
account if the accused were returned to the Complainant.

It is respectfully submitted that if the present complainant was aware that the accused did
not have funds and that the cheques would be Dishonored he would not have delivered
the material and goods to the present accused.

3
Grounds:
Thus it in his humble submission the complainant respectfully submits that the cheques
have been Dishonored because of insufficient funds in the account of the accused.

It has been submitted by the accused that since he came to know about the Dishonored
cheques since that day he has been making constant efforts to contact the Accused but the
present accused has willfully known about his act has been at large and not available and
his whereabouts are not known by the complainant herein mentioned.

Thereby the complainant in his humble submission lays down that because of such a
situation created by the accused the complainant was forced to come to conclusion and
filed the present complainant stating that the accused took the goods delivered and
knowingly had issued a cheque which he knew would be Dishonored as there were
insufficient funds in his account and thereby causing inconvenience to the present
complainant and neither did the present accused have any alternative method of paying
the complainant.

It has been submitted that the cheques were presented to the banker of the complainant on
12-5-2019 and the same cheques because of insufficient funds have been returned to the
complainant on 14-5-2019.

The complainant had thereby served a notice regarding the same to the complainant dated
20-5-2019 thereby mentioned demand of payment of the particular sum but the same was
not given by the present accused.

That from this behavior of the accused for which he is considered to be liable the
complainant has come to this Hon’ble court under the complainant filed under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881

3
It is thereby also submitted that the complainant has fulfilled the condition of the section
as the complainant has filed the complaint well within the period of limitation and that
the same complain has not been filed in the court of other jurisdiction and not pending in
any proceeding before other court in the country.

Prayer:
The complainant therefore respectfully prays that:
The accused should be tried under the offence committed within the ambit of the
provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act and punished accordingly,

That the said amount shall be paid by the accused to the present complainant with
an interest of 2% from the date of issuance of the cheques,
Any other relief which the court may seem fit in the interest of Justice and equity

Ahmedabad
Dated - -2021

Sd/-
Complainant
Through his counsel

3
2.2 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICATION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No. OF 2021

(FROM THE FINAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.08.2020 PASSED BY

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
305 OF 2013)

IN THE MATTER OF: -

Kantibhai Amthabhai Patel,

Age 57, Male,

Occupation: Service,

Residing at:

D-407, Sarjan Towers,

Memnagar, Ahmedabad. …

PETITIONER/ORIG

INAL ACCUSED

VERSUS

1. Union Territory of

Chandigarh through Home

Secretary,

New Delhi. RESPONDENT

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE

3
136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

3
To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of

India And his Companion Justices

of The Supreme Court of India

At New Delhi.

The humble petition of the

Above named petitioner

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH

1. That the present Special Leave Petition (Criminal.) is filed against order dated
26.08.2021of the High Court of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2013,
titled “Kantibhai Patel, versus The State of Gujarat” whereby the Hon’ble Court
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

2. That the present petition raises an important question of law for consideration
before this Hon’ble Court.

3. BRIEF FACTS

On the night intervening 11/12.2.2013 murder of Shri Bachna Ram, who was a cook
and domestic servant of Shri Devinder Singh Brar, was committed in the kitchen of
his house when Shri Devinder Singh Brar and his sister Smt. Gurmail Kaur were in
Bharuch, Gujarat. The F.I.R. was registered on by one Praffulbhai, who PW-11 who
resides in the neighborhood of house. The offence came into light when Smt. Babita
the sweeper of House No. 52 informed the complainant that on 11.2.2013 and again
on 13.2.2013. Smt. Babita informed the complainant. On the information given by
complainant S.I. Puran Chand aforesaid recorded D.D.R. No. 46 dated 13.2.2013 in
the Rojnamcha of the Police-Station, and formed a Police party and the came to the
House of incident. The investigation of this case remained pending with S.I. Puran

3
Chand up to 8.3.2013. The police remained unsuccessful in tracing out the crime till
8.4.2013. On that day, Balwan Singh S.I. PW-24 of the CIA staff, took over the
investigation of this case. He along with members of the police party including S.I.
Partap Sing PW-23 visited House No. 53. where Mr. Devinder Singh Brar PW-12
was present. In his presence, appellant Gurdev Singh was interrogated and he made
certain disclosures after which the further story unfolded. After completion of the
investigation the accused were challenged on the charges under Section 120-B,
392/120-B, 302/34, 302/114, I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
framed against them and claimed trial. The Court of Session Judge, Ahmedabad
convicted the accused U/s. 120- B, 302/34 and in alternative 302/114 IPC.

4. That the copy of the Trial Court judgment passed by Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad
convicting and sentencing the petitioner in Sessions Case No.15 of 2013 U/s. 120-
B, 302/34 and in alternative 302/114 IPC is Annexure P-1

5. GROUNDS

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the Petitioner
approaches this Hon’ble Court by way of Special Leave Petition on the following
amongst other grounds: -

A. Because the judgment and order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High
Court which dismissed the appeal of the appellant is contrary to law and facts and
hence the same is liable to set aside both on the point of law and equity.

B. Because the prosecution only produced the partisan or the interested persons as
witnesses in order to prove the commission of crime by the petitioner. This fact
doubts the truthfulness of the case of prosecution.

C. Because the prosecution has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence
and has thus not presented the true version.

4
D. Because the prosecution has miserable failed to prove its case beyond doubt
against the petitioner.

E. Because the witnesses have not deposed correctly and there is discrepancy in the
depositions of witnesses and the conviction of the petitioner is bad.

F. Because the Hon’ble Court ignored the fact to be considered in the case was as to
whether the evidence of PW-5 Gurpartap Singh, the approver, was reliable and if
so whether there was corroboration to his evidence on material particulars so as to
warrant conviction. It is high-lighted that it was a case of no evidence from the
side of the prosecution and, therefore, the evidence of the approver and other
circumstances, corroborated by his statement cannot be the base of conviction of
the appellant.

G. Because Gurpartap Singh PW-5 lost his status as an approver when he appeared
before the learned Committing Magistrate and his statement was recorded as PW-
1 on 11.9.1995. The relevant portion of the same is as follows: -

“Before 7.4.2012 I had no conversation with anybody. On 7.4.2012 myself,

accused Subeg Singh and accused Nand Singh were coming from Rajpura to
Chandigarh on a Motorcycle. I had come to Chandigarh on that date for the first
time. When we crossed Zirakpur, we were apprehended on the first Chowk by the
Chandigarh Police. From there we were apprehended and implicated in this case.
I do not know where Sector 28 is. I was threatened by the Police that I should
give a statement in favour of the Polcie otherwise I would be involved in a TADA
case and should suffer imprisonment for whole of the life. In the Jail also, the
police people used to visit me and threaten and intimidate me. I made statement
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on account of fear of the police. I have
nothing more to say about this Case”

4
H. Because the above statement will show that the tender of pardon given to
Gurpartap Singh by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad on
1.5.2012 was no, more available and he lost the status of an approver. It is stated
here that the Learned Committing Magistrate was entirely wrong in permitting the
cross-examination of Gurpartap Singh by the prosecution by declaring him
hostile. This could not have been done for the simple reason that he did not attain
the status of a witness. This being so, all the proceedings after 11.9.2012 with
regard to the examination of Gurpartap Singh as a witness by the Learned
Committing Magistrate or by the Learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh stood
vitiated being totally illegal. It is submitted that from the date 11.5.2012 when
Gurpartap Singh made the above statement, he is to be taken as an accused and
not an approver, he had made altogether different statement from the one alleged
to have been made after alleged acceptance of tender of pardon.

6. That the Petitioner has not filed any other Special Leave Petition against the
Impugned Order dated 26.11.2015 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.
7. PRAYER

In the premises the Petitioner herein prays that this Hon‟ble Court may graciously
be pleased to:

a) Grant special leave to appeal to the petitioner against judgment and order
dated26.08.2019 of the High Court of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of
2013, titled “Kantibhai Patel versus The State of Gujarat”

b) Pass any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the Petitioner.

DRAWN AND FILED BY

DRAWN ON: NEW DELHI ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER

FILED ON:

4
 AFFIDAVIT

I, Kantibhai Patel, Aged Adult, Hindu, Male, address given at the title clause of present
petition, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under, that what is stated in Para
1 to 6 bare facts and the same to the best of my knowledge is true and correct and I
believe it to be true. Paragraph 7 contains prayer.

Solemnly affirm by me on this day of 2021.

4
2.3 APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE UNDER

SECTION 125 OF THE CrPC

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AHMEDABAD

MAINTENANCE APPLICATION NO 1234 OF
2021
(UNDER SECTION125 OF CrPC)

Krishna Chauhan, aged 32

years, Residing at hirabaug
society,
Ahmedabad 380054 ……. First applicant

Parmender Singh,aged 34
years, Residing at sukan villas,
Ahmedabad 345991 ……. Second applicant

Versus

Piyush Chauhan, aged 42 years,

Residing at Shanti kunj,
Ahmedabad 358213...............................................................................Opponent

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE UNDER SECTION 125 OF

THE CrPC,1973

To,
The judge of the family court at Ahmedabad,

4
The first applicant respectfully lays down as under that,

4
It is humbly submitted that first applicant is the wife of the present opponent and that
their marriage was solemnized on 5-4-2004 in accordance to the Hindu ceremonies.

It is further submitted that the first applicant before her marriage she was considered to
be called by the name of Kumari while even after the marriage there was no change in the
same.

After marriage both the applicant and opponent have been residing together and that they
have given birth to two daughters by the names of Sonu and Riya aged 6 and 12 years
respectively.

Since the first applicant did not give birth to a son the husband started I'll treating her and
was thrown out of the house and had not place but to go to her parents’ house

Her parents made the maximum efforts to lay down that not given birth to a son is not the
fault of the first applicant but the parents of the opponent were not ready to withstand the
same

Grounds:

Due to continuing I'll treatment by the opponent and also due to heavy consumption of
alcohol he and his parents use to beat the first applicant.

Reason being the first applicant is staying with her parents who are very poor.

Even though the opponent is working as a doctor in the government hospital and earning
a salary of RS 50000 per month he is not ready to maintain the first applicant.

As the first applicant is illiterate she is not able to maintain herself leading to making an
application for grant of maintenance to her from the opponent to maintain herself.

4
It is also submitted by the first applicant that the opponent had even married another
woman in the said time.

The first applicant thereby has served the opponent with a notice thereby calling him to
pay the maintenance of RS 10000 per month to maintain herself and daughters but as he
did not pay the present application has been made.

The court in which the application is filed has the jurisdiction to try the same and the
similar suit is not pending in any other jurisdiction.
The court fee with regard to the same shall be attached along with the application.

Prayer:
It is respectfully prayed by the first applicant that:

The application be allowed and the opponent be made liable to pay a sum of RS 10000
per month in the form of maintenance

The cost of the application shall also be given

Any other relief which the court may think fit may be granted

Ahmedabad
Dated - -2021

Sd/-
Applicant through the council

4
 2.4 CRIMINAL REVISION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

AT AHMEDABAD

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. OF 2020

Maheshkumar Nathubhai Patel,

Age: 24

Occupation: Business,

Residing at:

Juni Sheri,

Manekchawk,

Ahmedabad. …. Applicant

(Original Accused No. 1)

Versus

1. State of Gujarat

(Notice to be served

through the Ld. Public

Prosecutor District Court,

Ahmedabad)

2. Samratbhai Laljibhai

Bharwad Resident of

Bharwad Vas,

Vadaj,

District: Ahmedabad …. Opponents

(No.2 is Original Complainant)

4
 Criminal Revision Application U/s. 397 R/w 401
of Cr.P.C. against the impugned order passed by
the J.M.F.C. Ahmedabad in I. CR 3/16 dated
11.03.2021.

The above named applicant humbly submits as under:

1) The applicant is original accused no.1 in the complaint registered as I.CR.No. 3/16 with
Odhav Police Station. The applicant preferred anticipatory bail application before the
Hon’ble High Court, however it was withdrawn after hearing. The applicant preferred to
surrender himself before the Hon’ble trial Court on 11.03.2021 with application contending
the reasons therein.

2) The applicant further states that the trial Court issued notice to the investigating officer
upon the said application. At the time of hearing, the investigating officer remained
present along with papers and submitted his written objections. The trial Court after
hearing the advocate for the applicant and the investigating officer was pleased to passed
impugned order rejecting the application in Toto. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the impugned order passed by the Court below dated 11.03.2019 in I-Cr.No. 3/16, the
applicant prefers the present revision application on the following amongst other grounds
which may be raised at the time of hearing.

GROUNDS

a) The impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and illegal.
b) The trial Court grossly erred in interpretation of the provision and ratio laid down by the
Hon’ble High Court in the case of State of Gujarat Versus Karamsinh Nayabhai Patel,
reported in 1986 (1) GLR 673.

c) The trial Court passed the impugned order without application of mind and it has resulted
in miscarriage of justice. It has failed to appreciate the scope of Sec.44 of Cr.P.C. while
deciding such application.

4
d) The trial Court grossly erred in interpretation of the provision with regards to
surrendering of accused before the Magistrate and confused in appreciating the manner in
which judicial custody and Police custody is to be ordered. Further the trial Court failed
to appreciate that the accused surrendered before the Court in the circumstances
mentioned in the application and went on deciding the application as if applicant is
seeking bail. If the application is perused, it is urged that the applicant is ready and
willing to abide by the conditions put by the Court. The applicant also prayed for certain
directions from the trial Court if he is directed to be arrested or sent in Police Custody.
However, the trial court found it otherwise and only considered the application as if the
accused is seeking judicial custody. Hence, there is no question of creating an obstruction
or an obstacle in the process of investigation.

e) The applicant specifically apprehends that the way investing officer is threatening the
applicant and his family, there are all chances of physical and mental torture in Police
custody. It is further submitted that the investigating officer conveyed to the applicant’s
family that he personally wishes to arrest the applicants from his residence and wants to
set an example by beating him in public. The applicant’s apprehension is itself supported
by the written objections filed by the investigating officer before the trial Court. It is
mentioned in the objection that the Police wants to remove fear from the local public and
the investigating officer came to know from the talks during the investigation that the
applicant is lending money illegally and thereby if he is arrested these people will also be
freed from his fear. Such conducts of the investigating officer are more than the duty of
investigation and this is nothing but abuse of powers hence it requires to be supervised by
the Court to prevent Police atrocity.

f) The applicant further submits that the applicant is always ready and willing to co-operate
with the investigation. However, he is not being arrested whenever he visits the Police
Station and nor from the Court premises. Therefore, the applicant had to surrender before
the Court however, the trial Court did not appreciate the grounds mentioned in the
application and submitted at the time of hearing. Hence, the impugned order requires to
be set aside.

4
g) The applicant further humbly submits that the applicant will not create any obstruction or
an obstacle in the process of investigation even if the applicant is directed to be handed
over in the police custody by the Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble trial Court ought to have
directed to Police to arrest the applicant and to follow the guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in various judgements to prevent Police atrocity.

3) It is humbly submitted this Hon’ble court is having jurisdiction to hear and decide the
present revision application U/s.397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. as the impugned order is of
final nature and not interlocutory.

4) The present revision application is filed within the period of limitation. The certified
copy of impugned order is annexed herewith.
5) The applicant further submits that the applicant has not preferred any other application or
petition with the same subject matter before any other court.

6) Therefore, the applicant humbly prays that:

a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present revision
application and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2019 passed by
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad in I Cr.No. 3/16 registered
with Odhav Police Station. Further this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
order the trial Court to decide surrender application and direct the arrest in
Police custody and to prevent the abuse of Police as per guidelines of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgements.
b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for record and proceedings of
in I Cr.No. 3/16 registered with Odhav Police Station pending before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad.
c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant any other and further relief as
may be deemed fit and proper.

Place: Ahmedabad Advocate for the

Applicant. Date : / /2021

5
 AFFIDAVIT

I, Maheshkumar Nathubhai Patel, Age 24, Hindu, Male, Occupation: Agriculturist,

Residing at Ahmedabad, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under, that what
is stated in Para 1 to 6 bare facts and the same to the best of my knowledge is true and
correct and I believe it to be true. Paragraph 6 contains prayer.

Solemnly affirm by me on this day of 2021

Deponent

5
2.5 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT

AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION
NO. 1234 OF 2021
(WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS)
In the matter under the Constitution
Praying for the writ of habeas corpus and;
Under article 21 of the Constitution therewith, and in the matter between

Farukh sodha, aged 40

years, Residing at shrinivas
villa,
Ahmedabad 356782............................................................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Gujarat
(Through public prosecutor
Of the high court)
……. Respondent

Writ of habeas corpus

To,
The Hon’ble chief Justice of the High Court of

Gujarat, It is most respectfully prayed by the petitioner

that,

5
The Petitioner is a national citizen of India and is entitled to the protection of his

Fundamental Rights guaranteed under part III of the Constitution of India.

5
By way of present Petition, the petitioner is seeking for a writ of habeas corpus or a writ

in the nature of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the

respondents to produce

minor daughter aged 5 years now of the petitioner and the respondent, who has been

unjustifiably detained by the Respondent against her wish and well-being. Though there

are disputes pending with regards to the custody and other issues between the parties

before competent courts, the petitioner is compelled to file the present petition as the

petitioner has recently received a letter from her 5-year-old Daughter-Corpus- Nada

pointing out her willingness to stay with the mother.

Brief facts:

first daughter named Hamida was born. It was after the birth of the daughter there was

constant harassment by the respondent no3 to the petitioner. Owing to which the

petitioner was compelled to file maintenance application before the Competent court.

It is important to point out a past instance wherein Hamida-the first daughter of the

petitioner was taken away from her by the respondent husband when she was 1-year-old.

The petitioner then filed application under section 97 of CRPC and she was granted

custody of Hamida till she attains 18 years of age. It was then for the well-being of

Hamida she had resided with her maternal grand-parents since then.

It was then the fourth child named “Nada”-corpus was born after a period of 11 years on

08.04.2013. The harassment increased with the birth of the fourth girl child. The

petitioner was held responsible for the delivery of the girl child for all the times.

It was then the petitioner was driven out of the house by the respondent in 2015. All the

three daughters were taken away from her. In spite of the fact that the fourth child Nada

5
was merely 2 years old she was taken away from the petitioner though being fully aware

that the child requires the solace of the mother in its first phase of life.

The order later was passed which was then challenged by way of revision application

thereby stating the following grounds

Grounds

The daughter Aisha and Asma had in the past written a letter to the petitioner-mother that

they are being beaten and their care is not being taken up by the respondent -father they

are put under constant fear and threat by the father. They were put under threat for getting

their statement recorded before the Court also.

The respondent has also threatened the elder daughter Hamida for continuing with her

studies. It is important to point out that the respondent is not willing that the daughters go

to school and study. In one such instance when the respondent met Hamida he started

cursing her for continuing with the studies and use of abusive language for the petitioner

also as she is letting the daughters continue with study.

The petitioner is well aware about the exercise of Habeas Corpus jurisdiction which is

generally exercised in special circumstances and only when there is illegal confinement,

but the petitioner respectfully submits that the compelling circumstances do not restrict

the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the matters when the concern is grave

It is thus submitted that the exercise of writ jurisdiction in the benefit of a minor may be

well within the purview even during the pendency of the custody proceedings which are

also being conducted in a sense of fear amongst the children. It is further submitted that

5
exercise of writ jurisdiction can be done not only in illegal custody but also in unjustified

custody and hence the present petition seeking a relief against such unjustified custody.

The petitioner has not filed any other application in any other Court of India including

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India except what is stated herein above.

Prayer

The petitioner has respectfully prayed that:

This Hon'ble Court may be please to issues a writ of habeas corpus or a writ in nature of

habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents

to produce the Corpus-Nada, the minor daughter of the Petitioner, before this Hon'ble

Court and after inquiring about her well-being she should be set at liberty to be protected

by the petitioner.

Any other relief which the court may Deem fit may be granted

Signature

Advocate for the petitioner

Affidavit

I, the petitioner, hereby declare that whatever has been stated in the petition shall be

considered to be true to my knowledge and belief.

Dated - -2021

Signature

Petitioner

5
 Verification

I, Krishna Chauhan the present first applicant, do hereby affirm that the contents mention in the

application are to the best of my knowledge and belief and has been signed here under.

Sd/-

Applicant

5
2.6 APPLICATION U/S. 437 OF CR. PC FOR GRANT OF BAIL

IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT NO. 15 AT AHMEDABAD

CITY

Criminal Misc. Application No: /2021

Kantibhai Amthabhai Patel,

Age 57, Male,

Occupation: Service,

Residing at:

D-407, Sarjan Towers,

Memnagar, Ahmedabad. … Applicants

Versus

State of Gujarat

Notice to be served through

The Public Prosecutor,

At Metropolitan Magistrate,

Ahmedabad … Respondent

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 437 OF THE

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR REGULAR
BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH FIR NO. 10/2019 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
U/S SECTION 294(KH), 506(2), 498(A), 114 OF IPC
AND SECTION 3 & 7 OF DOWREY PROHIBITION
ACT.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE

APPLICANTS ABOVE-NAMED:

5
 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The petitioners above named most respectfully submits that the petitioners have filed this
application for regular bail under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in connection
with the FIR No. I/10/2021 registered with Maninagar police station Ahmedabad for the
offences punishable under section U/S Section 498(A), 294(KH), 506(2), and 114 of Indian
Penal Code and section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is submitted that in pursuance to the above referred above FIR the petitioners came to be
arrested on 12/03/2019 and thereafter investigation authority produced before this Hon’ble
Court on the same day.
3. Petitioners therefore, left with no alternative efficacious remedy, prefers this application
before this Hon'ble Court praying for being granted regular bail on following grounds which
are laid down without prejudice to each other and on such grounds as may be argued by the
learned counsel at the time of hearing of the application.
GROUNDS

A. The petitioner’s states that they are not committed any crime as alleged and that he
has been unnecessarily roped in as accused.
B. It is respectfully submitted by the present petitioners that bare perusal of the
criminal complaint would reveal that there are no direct or indirect allegations
against present applicants at all. The petitioners have not played any role with
respect to the alleged offences and looking to contents and allegations, it cannot be
said that the present petitioners are guilty and therefore, the petitioners are required
to be released on regular bail.
C. The petitioners respectfully submit that on 12.02.2019 FIR was registered for the
offences punishable under section U/S Section 498(A) 294(KH), 506(2), and 114
of Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and before
that petitioners were cooperated with the investigation and for that on 28.11.2018
accuse no.1 issued letter to the Maninagar police station for fair investigation.
Copy of the letter dated 28.11.2018 along with receipts of India Post are produced
herewith and marked as Annexure-A. It is further submitted that petitioners

5
never harassed

5
 complainant in any way. Copy of the Family photographs produced herewith and
marked as Annexure-B. It cannot be said that the present applicants are guilty and
therefore, the petitioners are required to be released on regular bail.
D. The petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Mohansingh Vs. Union
Territory reported in AIR 1978 SC 1095 and judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Gujarat in Vishal Kanailal Punjabi Vs. The state of Gujarat that bail may be
granted without entering into the merits of the case. There is no apprehension of
tempering the evidence. Therefore, the petitioner may kindly be released on bail.
E. The petitioner respectfully submits that petitioners were arrested on 12.03.2019
and on the same day produced before this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the
present petitioners have no past criminal antecedent. The petitioners are residing at
Address mentioned in the cause title with his family. The petitioners are not likely
to temper with the evidences as the same has been collected by the Investigation
agency. Therefore, the petitioners may kindly be released on regular bail.
F. That “bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception”. It is also observed that
refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand,
(1977) 4 SCC 308, this Court opined:
G. In the view of the above it is clear that the custody of the petitioner may not be
required by the investigating officer and therefore, applicant relying on Judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr
(2014(8) SCC 273), the petitioner may kindly be released on bail by enforcing
stringent conditions upon the petitioner.
4. The petitioners have no other alternative efficacious remedy but to approach this HON’BLE
Court by way of this Application.
5. The petitioners submit that there is no other application filed by the petitioner earlier, with
regards to the subject matter of this application in any court of law in India including the
HON’BEL Supreme Court of INDIA.
6. The petitioners Craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete rescind any of the above ground, if
need arise to do so.
7. The petitioner, Therefore, pray that: -

5
 A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to release the petitioners on regular bail
in connection with the FIR No.10/2019 registered with Maninagar police
station Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under section U/S Section
498(A) 294(KH), 506(2), and 114 of Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 7 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act on such terms and conditions as maybe deemed fit
and proper by the HON’BEL Court in the interest of justice;
B. Affidavit may be dispensed with as the applicant is in judicial custody.

C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other further relief (s) as may

be deemed in the interest of justice;

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

Date:

Place: Ahmedabad (Advocate for the applicant)

6
2.7 APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR. P. C. FOR
ANTICIPATORY BAIL

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AT JUNAGADH.

Criminal Misc. Application No. of 2021

Applicant: Kantibhai Amthabhai Patel,

Age 57, Male,

Occupation: Service,

Residing at:

D-407, Sarjan Towers,

Memnagar, Ahmedabad.

Versus

Opponent: State of Gujarat,

Notice to be served through:

Public Prosecutor, Junagadh.

Application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for

anticipatory bail in connection with the
F.I.R likely to be registered with Visavadar
Police Station.

6
The applicant above named humbly submits as follows:

1. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the F.I.R. likely to
be registered with Visavadar Police Station by the new Trustees of Mataji
Kankeshwari Temple Trust. The applicant states that one Mr. Prabhubhai
Govindbhai Oza has already filed one private complaint vide Criminal Inquiry
Case No. 6/2021 in the Court of J.M.F.C. at Visavadar on 19/09/2021 under
Section 406, 465, 467, 474, 477-A of I.P.C. The said complaint is registered
as
M. Case No. 340/2015 in Visavadar Police Station on 21.12.2016.

2. The applicant was elected for President for about ten years and at present the
applicant is one of the Trustees in Mataji Kankeshwari Temple Trust which is
registered as per the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. Before filing of
the said complaint the said person Mr. Prabhubhai Govindbhai Oza had given
application before the Joint Charity Commissioner on 29.06.2015 which
contained the same entries of account and was having the same subject matter.
The said application was heard and finally decided with some mandatory
direction by the Joint Charity Commissioner on 05.12.2015.

3. The applicant states that the applicant had given resignation during the
pendency of this application before the Joint Charity Commissioner.
However, vexatious private criminal complaint was filed with ulterior motive
to damage the reputation of the applicant and to keep him away from trust
administration.

4. The applicant is a reputed businessman in steel sector. The applicant is in the

business of steel supply for about thirty-five years and at present working with
Tata Steel Ltd., Indore Steel Re-Rolling Mills and Trilok Ship Breaker and

6
many other reputed companies.

6
5. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and the applicant is never arrested
in any criminal case.

6. The applicant preferred anticipatory bail application vide Criminal

Miscellaneous Application No.15/2018 before this Honorable Court and it
was granted on 31.12.2018 in connection with the Criminal Inquiry Case No.
6/2018 which came to be registered as M. Case No. 3/2019 in Visavadar
Police Station. However, the applicant was not arrested within ninety days
from the date of order, the applicant preferred another application for
anticipatory bail on 28.03.2018 vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
53/2018. At the time of hearing of the later application, it was found that the
order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application 53/2018, is not limited
and the applicant is protected till his arrest is made. Hence, it was withdrawn
with that endorsement.
7. The applicant humbly submits that the applicant is apprehending that a fresh
complaint will be filed by the new Trustees appointed in Mataji Kankeshwari
Temple Trust as the agenda was kept in the last meeting held at Kankai
temple. It was also discussed in the meeting that since in earlier complaint
police has filed report under Section 169 of the Cr. P.C. i.e. ‘A – Summary’
and the applicant is not arrested, the new Trustees want to teach him a lesson.
Therefore, it is decided in the meeting to file a fresh complaint against the
applicant at Visavadar Police Station either by new trustees or any other
person connected with the temple. The applicant apprehends a complaint to be
filed with regard to the same allegations raised in earlier complaint.
8. The applicant states that the applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application
no. 53 of 2018. However, the same was withdrawn having reserved the right
to file fresh application in case FIR is lodged. The applicant further submits
that recently i.e. after withdrawal of it, again meeting of trustees was called
for fling of complaint against present applicant. Hence, the applicant
apprehends arrest in such vexatious compliant.

6
 9. The applicant has not preferred any other application with regard to the same
subject matter of this application, either before the Honorable Gujarat High
Court or any other Court of law in India.

10. Therefore, the applicant humbly prays that:

a. Your Honour be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in

connection with the F.I.R. likely to be registered having the same subject-
matter and offences of earlier complaint, with Visavadar Police Station,
District – Junagadh, on such terms and conditions as are deemed fit in the
interest of justice

b. Your Honour may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as
deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.

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

SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

Junagadh. Advocate for the applicant

Date: / /2021

6
Unit: 3 Conveyance Deeds

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

3.1 Will 64-66

3.2 Codicil 67-67

3.3 Agreement to sell 68-69

3.4 Gift Deed 70-71

3.5 Rent Note 72-72

3.6 General Power of Attorney 73-75

3.7 Special Power of Attorney 76-76

3.8 Deed of Dissolution 77-77

6
UNIT 3: CONVEYANCE DEEDS

3.1 WILL

I, Selena Grand w/o Mr Subhash grand and D/o Leo reddy, aged 71 years, and occupying
the profession of a lawyer residing at 50, Ganesh housing apartment, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat- 460052, hereby declare that I am mentally and physically sound and fit and
understand the good and bad for what I am doing and making my will in full senses
without pressure of anyone else.

I am anxious to make necessary arrangements in respect of my property after my death so

that unnecessary misunderstanding and litigation between the members of my family may
be avoided. Therefore, I am executing this will and testament of my own free and
voluntarily without any kind of force or compulsion of anyone and with a sound mind
declare as follows:

I hereby declare that the will has been registered in the office of the sub registrar
Ahmedabad and that it shall come into force after my death till then I will use my
movable and immovable property

Further are the appointments:

I shall appoint my younger brother Darren Grand residing in bhaktinagar society

Ahmedabad and having his office in his residence to be the executor of the will. They
will be executed by him on the order made by me after my death.

My nearest relatives are my husband, my son , my son's wife, and minor daughters of my
son.
Everything that has been mentioned in the will is owned by me and I have earned it in the
form of salary, pension, retirement benefits, and so on and have invested with an
intention of having a better livelihood and all the movable and immovable property has
been owned by myself.

6
The following property after my death shall be distributed:

The flat no 302A, flat no 101, flat no 102, flat no 202, farm house no 89 in Ahmedabad
everything has been owned by me and my son and thereby have an undivided share of1/2
and thereby these properties shall during the life of my husband shall be used by him for
his business and setting up of hospital purpose.

As my son and their family do not have a good source of income a so that my son does
not have a financial crunch in future I bequeath the Immovable property to my son which
shall not be sold for a period of 6 years but in case of severe financial need for education
of the children the said property can be sold by my son after a consent of the executor of
the will.

I direct all the expenses of my last rights and funeral shall be made from the following:
Cash earned by me and in my possession
Saving bank account
Post office saving account
If the expenses exceed then it shall be paid by my son from my property acquired by them
under the will.

The will has been made in the presence of the witness and shall he executed there under
in the manner mentioned.
Dated - -2021
at Ahmedabad
Signature………
Mrs. Grand
Name of the executant…...
Mrs. Grand
In the presence of
Son: Ronaldinho Grand
Husband: Subhash
6
Grand

6
3.2 CODICIL
I, Vijay Bhatt, a resident of the country of India, Gujarat, declare that this is the codicil to
my last will and testament, which is dated - -2021.

I hereby make this codicil in addition to the will which was made by me on - -

2021. I shall change or add the last will in the following manner:

That the flat no 302 and flat no 101 which is owned by me and my son equally and as I
have ½ undivided share in the same and had mentioned to bequeath it in the name of my
son and daughter in law owing to their financial crunch in my will, now through this codicil
wish to amend the same and there the aforementioned flat shall now be bequeathed in the
favor of my brother who shall not sell the property until 6 months of such bequeathal
unless there is a situation where there is lack of finance for providing education to his
children he shall sell the said property given to him with the consent of the executor of
the will.

That the jewelry which was owned by me and bought out of my own money as declared
in the will was bequeathed in favor of my daughter in law as mentioned in the will, shall
by this codicil wish to amend the same and that the aforementioned jewelry shall now be
bequeathed in the favor of my daughter which shall be sold by her at the time of need of
finance with the consent of the executor of the will.
In other respects, as mentioned in the will, all the provisions contained therein dated - -
2021 shall remain in force and in effect.
The witness clause and declaration will be similar to that of the will as follows:
In witness whereof I, Vijay Bhatt have set and subscribed my hand to this Codicil at
Gujarat this day of - -2021
Signature of the maker
…………….
It is declared by the testator above that the codicil is made in the presence of us at the
same time and on the request of us attesting witnesses.
Dated: - -2021
6
3.3 AGREEMENT TO SELL
This agreement of sale made at Ahmedabad on this 12th day of 5th month of 2018
between shubhash and Mahesh Bhai Ahmedabad, Indian inhabitant, hereinafter referred
to as the vendor of the one part and mahesh Bhai also a resident of Ahmedabad, Indian
inhabitant, herein after referred to as the purchaser of the other part.

Whereas the vendor is seized and possessed of or otherwise we'll and sufficiently entitled
to land, premises situated at Ahmedabad and whereas the vendor agreed to sell and the
purchaser agreed to purchase the said Immovable property described in the schedule here
under written at the price and on the terms and conditions here under set out.

NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AND IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN

THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS:

I, SUBHASH shall sell and MAHESH BHAI shall purchase all and singular the said
piece or parcel of land or ground situate at gota Ahmedabad together with the premises
standing there in and more particularly described in the schedule here under mentioned,
free from incumbrancers at a price of RS 50000 to be paid as follows :
A sum of RS 50000 to be paid to the vendor as deposit agreement execution and the price
shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendor on completing the sale.

Subhash shall within a period of 7 days from the execution shall deliver all the title deeds
to he purchaser and documents in possession and control of the premises sold

Subhash shall submit the the title deeds within a period of one week from the date of
agreement for investigation of the title and Mahesh Bhai shall produce the report within 1
week of the delivery of the deeds.

If Mahesh bhai shall give the report that Subhash that his title is not clear, then Subhash
shall without any interest return the amount within 2 weeks from the date Mahesh has made

6
him aware of the same and if subhash does not give the amount within the said period
then he shall be liable to pay interest up to date of repayment

Subhash declare the sale of the house to be without encumbrance and hand over the
possession to the along with the registration of the conveyance deed.

If there is breach on the part of Mahesh Bhai, then the amount payed by him will be
forfeited and that the it shall be sold to some other person

And if such breach is committed by Subhash then he shall be liable to return the earnest
money and damages as well

Clearance certificate shall be obtained by Subhash under the IT act of 1962 and other
permission required.

The expenses with regard to the deed shall be borne by the purchaser.

IN THE WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE SET THEIR HANDS TO THIS
AGREEMENT ON THE DAY AND YEAR ABOVE-MENTIONED

SIGNATURE OF MR SUBHASH

SIGNATURE OF MR MAHESH

BHAI WITNESS

TINKU RANA

PARTH CHAUHAN

7
3.4 GIFT DEED

THE DEED OF GIFT HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 30-3-2021

BY
VARUN DHAVAN, S/O ABHISHEK DHAVAN, AGED 25YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHANTI KUNJ,
AHMEDABAD-367812

IN FAVOUR OF
RISHIK KUMAR, S/O DHARMIK KUMAR, AGED 23
YEARS, RESIDING AT SHASTRI NAGAR,
AHMEDABAD- 356721

GIFT DEED

Where the term donor and done unless going against the context shall mean an include
everyone in the family.

Where the donor is the owner of the property known as villas situated at Ahmedabad
mentioned above.

Where the donor had absolute ownership and the donor has been in possession of the said
property and paying taxes.

The donee is related to the donor as his brother

The donor desire to give the said land mentioned here in to the donee out of love and
affection.

7
This deed witness the donor shall without and consideration out of such love grant the
done a schedule property along with the tings already been attached to it as well as the
liberties there under and the same shall be up for the use of the donee subject to the
payment of taxes.

Where the donor has the absolute right to give the property as a gift.

The donee shall take possession of the said property and shall without any interruption
enjoy all the benefits attached with that property.

Any other benefits and privilege that the owner want to grant to the donee shall be
granted in accordance to the law

Gift under the deed

All the property under the no

1234 Measuring 200 sq. yards

Market value of the property under this deed is RS

2000000 The stamp duty is paint on market value

In witness thereof the donor as well as the done have put their respective hands the year
mentioned above

Witness

Varun DHAVAN
RISHIK Kumar

7
3.5 RENT NOTE
DATED: 4-5-2021

JAY KHANNA,
B/7 BHAKTINAGAR
SOCIETY, AHMEDABAD-
372929
(LANDLORD)
DATED 4-7-2021

RAJVI TANNA,
6, ABHISHEK BUNGLOWS,
AHMEDABAD 360029
RENT NOTE

Dear Rajvi Tanna,

This notice is to inform you that we have not received the full payment of the rent in
accordance to the lease deed dated 1-3-2020 for the premises located in the above
mentioned address which was Said to be due on 4-3-2021 of an amount of RS 12000.

According to this agreement you as on account of late fee are supposed to pay the late fee
of RS 1000 per day. If taken the matter to the court the cost with regard to the same shall
be incurred by you and thereby Increase.

The rent which is yet to be paid along with the late fee shall be paid to me.

Sincerely,
Jay Khanna,

7
Land lord

7
3.6 GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, We, (1) Mahesh Nathubhai
Baraiya, aged about 36 years, Occupation Service, Hindu by Religion and (2) Kamini
Mahesh Baraiya, aged about 34 years, Occupation Service, Hindu by Religion, both
Residing at B-7, Kayakalp Row House-2, Jodhpur Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-
380051 SEND GREETINGS: -

We both intent to purchase the following properties:

Property to be purchased in the name of Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya: -

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: -

All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Room No.166, 4th Floor,
Building No.15/F, Halai Lohana Niwas, now under HBS Sea View Pvt.Ltd., Shankar
Bali Lane, Chira Bazar, Mumbai. 400,002.

Property to be purchased in the name of Bhimjibhai Kanubhai Shah:-

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: -

All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing property No.23-B, 2nd Floor,
Building No.15/C, Lohana Niwas, now under HBS Sea View Pvt.Ltd., Shankar Bali
Lane, Chira Bazar, Mumbai. 400,002.

Whereas We are personally unable to attend affairs and look after, manage, and
administer our immovable property/ies which are to be purchased more particularly
described herein above written and whereas We desirous of appointing some fit and
proper person to represent us and manage and administer or property generally and
particularly to do all other acts and deeds for the abovesaid property.

NOW, we hereby constitute, nominate and appoint our friend Chauhan Bhagirath
Rameshbhai, aged about 40 years, Occupation: Service. Hindu by Religion and (2)
Chauhan Reenaben Bhagirath, aged about 38 years, Occupation Housewife, Both
Residing at B-7, Kayakalp Row House-2, Jodhpur Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-

7
380051 to be our true and lawful attorney in our names and on our behalf to do all or any
of the following acts, and deeds and things and we hereby make it clear and specific that
any of the things, deeds or acts that may be done or performed by the said Attorney, shall
be binding to us, as if, the same are done by us personally.

1. To purchase the above said property/ies in our individual name and to execute
Agreement to Sell, Sale-deed;

2. To execute any Leave-Licence Agreement and to give on license to any person or

party and to receive the Licence fee and to give receipt to the person or party and
to cancel the Leave Licence Agreement;

3. To purchase the above said property/ies and appear for us and to represent us in
respect of the said property, before any of the Registrar of Assurances or Sub-
Registrar or other Officer competent to register according to law for the time
being in force and applicable thereto and for procuring and effecting the
registration in due form of law all or any sale-deeds, agreement of sale or
Release-deed, or any type of documents, to purchase/sell/transfer the said
property for the said property more particularly described hereinabove and
writings executed either by us or by our said Attorney pursuant to this power and
for that purpose for us and in our individual name and otherwise on our behalf to
do and execute all acts, matters and things that may be considered necessary by
the said attorney and to get the consideration in my name and on behalf of us.

4. To compromise and settle actions, suits, and other proceedings as the said
Attorney may deem expedient and also to appoint Advocate, Pleader, etc.
pertaining to the said property.

5. To give/file reply of any kind of notice issued by City Survey Supdt. or Collector,
State, Semi Govt. in respect of my Immovable Property as mentioned hereinabove
and to appear and act in all courts civil, revenue, criminal and in any other office
of Government, District Board Municipal Corporation, Electricity Board or
Company or any other authority.

7
6. We authorize our Power of Attorney to pay the consideration amount for the Sale-
deed and to pay Registration Fee, Advocate fee, Typing charge etc. as per
requirement in executing the Sale-deed and to get the receipt and to execute any
affidavit, declaration, and to get N.O.C. and No-due Certificate from the vendor
on our behalf.

7. We declare that our said Attorney shall be entitled to execute and exercise all or
any of the aforesaid powers and authorities pertaining to the said property/ies.

8. That I agree and hereby declare that whatever is done by our said Attorney by
virtue of this Power of Attorney shall be at all-time absolutely and irrevocable
binding to us, as if, everything is done personally by us.

Dated this day of , 2021;

Donner PHOTO

1---------------------------------

Mahesh Nathubhai Baraiya

2---------------------------------

Kamini Mahesh Baraiya

We accept Donee:

Chauhan Bhagirath Rameshbhai

Chauhan Reenaben Bhagirath

7
3.7 SPECIAL POWER OF THE ATTORNEY
(For execution before sub registrar)

To all to whom these presents shall come I, Ramesh Patel of AHMEDABAD, Indian
inhabitant,

Where I was the owner of the land and premises situated at Ahmedabad and more precisely
described in the written schedule.

And execute the deed of conveyance in favor of Nihar shah the purchaser.

As I am not able to go to the sub registrar I am appointing Yunus Syed as my attorney to

attend the office of the sub registrar to admit the execution of the conveyance.

Thereby in presence of the witness I nominate and constitute Mr Yunus Syed with all the
power of the attorney which goes on to say:

To Lodge in the office of the registrar at Ahmedabad and admit conveyance execution
which shall be executed by me in favor of the purchase.

I hereby affirm to adhere to what my attorney has said and shall purport to do or cause to
be done by the virtue of the same.

Signature
In presence of witness

7
3.8 DEED OF DISSOLUTION
DEED FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF PARTNERSHIP
WHERE ONE PARTY RETIRES AND THE OTHER TWO CONTINUE WITH THE
BUSINESS.
The deed made ok 14-7-2021 between the retiring partner Rajesh kanojia on the first part,
the partner continuing Malhar sing as the second part, Arjan Bhatia as the third part.

By the deed dates 14-7-2021 the said partners agreed to carry on the business in the
partnership which had equal shares for a period of 10 years’ subject to the provisions of
the deed and have carried on the business until the present time.

The statement and account of the books have been signed and settled by the first, second
and third part and the shares of all the partners in the partnership have been laid down
and the interest there off have been mentioned and the said share shall be paid in
installments at the expiration of 6,12,28 months

In part pursuance of the said agreement the continuing partners have executed to the first
part their joint bearing subject to the condition there under mentioned.

Here the outgoing partner shall appoint the continuing partner the attorney of the firm
and shall collect all the assets of the partnership and ask to recover and receive the debts.

Here the two continuing partners shall jointly pay the outgoing partner a particular sum
by way of installments and also the interest on the said sum which shall be paid yearly on
the date mentioned herein above.
Each of them shall release other from the proceeding without prejudice to the rights and
remedies under the deed

The first part shall not carry out any interaction with any of the people or in relation to
the business within the period of 2 years
In witness etc

7
Unit: 4 Miscellaneous

Sr. No. Title of Draft Pg. No.

4.1 Model Arbitration Clause Agreement 78-81

4.2 Caveat Application 82-83

4.3 Complaint U/S 138 OF Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 84-87

4.4 Consumer complaint 88-94

4.5 Notice U/S 138 OF Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 95-96

4.6 Appeal and revision before consumer commision 97-105

4.7 Writ of Mandamus 106-120

7
UNIT 4: MISCELLANEOUS
4.1 MODEL ARBITRATION CLAUSE AGREEMENT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD

Krishna Retail Ltd. ….. Claimant

Versus

C.g Square Arcade Pvt. Ltd. ….. Opponent

APPLICATION BY THE OPPONENT U/S 17 OF THE ARBITRATION &

CONCILIATION ACT.

The Opponent above named most respectfully submits as under:

1. The Opponent herein has given on lease to the Claimant the premises being unit
no. 2 and 102 in the C.g Square Arc Complex, C G. Road, Ahmedabad. The
terms and conditions for the same have been agreed upon by and between the
parties hereto and have been recorded in the Term Sheet. As per the said agreed
terms, the claimant is liable to pay rent @ Rs.80/- per sq. per month to the
opponent.

2. The Opponent submits that the claimant has grossly violated the terms and
conditions of the Term Sheet. The claimant has deliberately and intentionally
failed and neglected to sign and execute the Lease Agreement with respect to the
said premises. Further, the claimant has forced and coerced the opponent to
reduce the rate of lease rent and by employing various means and by making
various kinds of false and baseless allegations, has attempted to make the
opponent accept a reduction in rate of lease rent. The opponent categorically
submits that a reduction in rate of lease rent as well as the undue and uncalled for
insistence on the part of the claimant to force the opponent to accept a reduction
in rate of lease rent are both against the very core of terms of the Term Sheet. The
conduct, attitude and approach of the claimant all along, clearly shows and
8
establishes that it has

8
 absolutely no intention of paying lease rent to the opponent at the agreed rate of
Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month towards the said premises being peacefully used and
enjoyed by the claimant.

3. The opponent further submits that the claimant had made an Application u/s 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon’ble District Court, at
Ahmedabad, being C. M. A. No. 10 / 2009, wherein absolutely false and baseless
allegations were made by the claimant against the opponent. The opponent
submits that the claimant is now taking undue advantage of the order dated
26.08.2009 passed in the said proceedings and has also blatantly violated the said
order by not paying the lease rent to the opponent as per the agreed rate as per the
direction of the Hon’ble Court and is, thus, guilty of contempt of court.

4. The opponent submits that in spite of the order dated 26.08.2009 passed by the
Hon’ble Court in C.M.A. No.10/2009 to go on depositing the Lease Rent amount
regularly on or about 10th of every month as per the terms and conditions and in
spite of having agreed to the terms and conditions of lease viz. lease rent at the
rate of Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month, the claimant, taking undue advantage of the
judicial order, has acted shockingly and outrageously by unilaterally and
arbitrarily reducing the rate of lease rent to Rs.40/- per sq. per month i.e. reducing
the lease rent @ 50%, with effect from October 01, 2009. It would be pertinent to
note here that the claimant is peacefully enjoying the premises and carrying on
business from the said premises without any kind of disturbance or hindrance and
is also using all the various facilities and amenities provided therein by the
opponent viz. lift, escalator, A. C. Plant, electrical connections, etc. and on the
other hand the claimant is disturbing and harassing the other occupants of the
complex and is also deliberately flouting the rules of the Society with the clear
intention of causing disturbance and annoyance to the opponent and other
members of the Complex.

8
 5. The dishonest intentions of the claimant are very clear form the fact that vide
letter dated 16.12.2008, the claimant had conveyed to the opponent its desire to
reduce the size of the store and consequently reduce the lease rent citing
sustainability issues. Moreover, a draft of the Lease Agreement sent by the
claimant to the opponent for approval on 16.12.2008 mentioned the rate of lease
rent at the rate of Rs.40/- per sq. f.t per month, as against the agreed rate of
Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month. Thus, the claimant being in possession of the leased
premises and carrying on business from the said premises, has all along attempted
to force and coerce the opponent to accept a reduction of 50% in rate of lease rent
and is using unfair and unlawful means to achieve its vested interest.

6. The opponent submits that the attitude and conduct of the claimant and its
unilateral and shocking action of reducing the rate of lease rent by 50% with
effect from October 01, 2009 clearly establishes the dishonest and insincere
intentions of the claimant of not paying the lease rent at the agreed rate in spite of
being in possession of the property. Under the circumstances, it is necessary and
in the interest of justice that the claimant be directed to pay lease rent to the
opponent at the agreed rate of Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month along with arrears.
Further, the claimant also be directed to produce the complete Statement of
Accounts. Hence this Application.

7. The opponent, therefore, prays that:

A) The Hon’ble Arbitrator be pleased to direct the claimant to pay to the opponent,
the lease rent regularly at the agreed rate of Rs.80/- per sq. ft. per month i.e.
Rs.18,18,560/- as per the order passed by the Hon’ble District Court in C.M.A.
No. 10/2009 to deposit the lease rent amount regularly on or about 10th of every
month, along with the arrears from 01.10.2009, and be further pleased to direct the
claimant to produce on record the Statement of Accounts.
B) Any other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper be granted.

Date: / /2021

Ahmedabad.
8
4.2 CAVEAT APPLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, AT AHMEDABAD

CAVEAT
IN
C.A. NO. 1244 OF 2021
IN
F.A. NO. 4321 OF 2021
(Under section 148-A of CPC)

Kejriwal shah, aged 51years,

Residing at 66 bhaktikunj park,
Ahmedabad-387612 …...Caveator

V/s

Lakhmikant Pyarelal, aged 48 years,

Residing at Shalimar complex,
Ahmedabad-359621 …...Opponent

Caveat application under section 148- A of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

TO,
The judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat,

The Caveator most respectfully sheweth as under that,

8
Brief facts

That the Caveator in the civil suit no 1245 of 2018 had filed a suit against the original
defendant for the purpose of specific performance of the contract between them.

In this suit the Caveator thereby prayed for the damages of 50000 RS for the breach of
contract.

The learned judged thereby by order dated 2-3-2018 passed an order in the favor of the
Caveator for performance of contract and that the opponent shall in favor of the original
plaintiff execute the sale deed.

Being aggrieved by the decision passed by the trial court the original defendant would be
likely to institute the first appeal before the court and pray for stay of decree there under.

He has the right to approach the trial court to oppose any such stay if been prayed for

Prayer:
It is most respectfully prayed that

Nothing may be allowed to be done and no stay shall be granted in favor of the opponent
by the court without hearing or serving the Caveator with notice

The notice shall be sent to the caveat and the copy of the same is annexed herewith.

Any other relief which the court may deem fit in equity and Justice may be granted

Ahmedabad
Dated: - -2021
Signature
Advocate for the Caveator

8
4.3 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 OF NI ACT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AT

AHMEDABAD

COMPLAINT NO. OF 2021

( Under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 )

R H S Holidays,

Through its proprietor,

Pankaj S.Gupta

having its office at:

Banker House near Golden

Triangle, Stadium Road,

Navrangpura,

Ahmedabad...........................................................................................Complainant

Versus

Mr. Jitendra Agrawal,

B-801, Chinmay Crystal,

Opp. Vastrapur Lake,

Vastrapur,

Ahmedabad-380 015..............................................................................Accused

8
 TO

THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AND OTHER COMPANION MATROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

AHMEDABAD.

1.. That the complainant is in the business of Hotel booking, Air tickets, Car Rentals
etc. and the accused is dealing in the business of steel and is having friendly relation
with the complainant and known to the complainant since more than 10 years.
The complainant has booked many tours and tickets for the accused and his
family in the past and is having cardinal relation with the accused.

2.. That on 20/01/2013, accused approached Mr. Pankaj proprietor of RHS Holidays
and requested him for an amount of rs. 2,73,892/- as he wanted to buy dollars as
his son was going abroad for studies and the accused assured complainant that
same amount will be returned back to the complainant within a week.

3.. That on considering long business transaction and personal friendly terms and on
oral assurance given by accused to the complainant, complainant had given a
cheque of self on 22/01/2013 for the amount of Rs.2,73,892/- and on the basis of
same cheque a Demand Draft of the same amount was given to accused for the
purpose of buying foreign currency for the son of accused.

4.. That the accused has assured the complainant that the same amount will be
returned to him within a week and accused had also given a cheque dated
24/01/2013 of DCB Bank, Relief Road, Ahmedabad branch. The complainant
relying upon words and promise of the accused and presented the said cheque in
his ICICI Bank, CG Road Branch but vide intimation dated 29/01/2013, the
complainant was informed that the cheque could not be cleared because of
insufficient funds in the account of accused and the same was communicated to
the accused.

5.. Thereafter, complainant got an assurance from the accused to re-deposit the
cheque and this time the cheque will be cleared, therefore, the complainant once

8
again deposited the above cheque on 26/02/2013 but the said cheque could not be
cleared

8
 because of insufficient funds in the account of accused, which is maintained with
DCB Bank, Relief Road, Ahmedabad.

6.. Then after the complainant had tried to contact accused several times and every
time false assurance was given that he will pay the debt amount, but he never paid
the legal and payable debt to the complainant and therefore, on 12/03/2013 the
complainant has sent notice for the said cheque through his advocate U/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act upon the accused by R.P.A.D calling upon the
accused to make good the payment of the amount referred in the cheques within
15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The copy of said notice was also sent
another address which is 5, Nutan Society, opp. Mahadev Temple, Paldi,
Ahmedabad and the said notice from the both the address were returned to the
advocate with an endorsement that “unclaimed returned” and from 2nd address, it
returned with a memo that “ no person of that name is staying there.” It is
required to be noted that the accused is staying at the given address only and has
wilfully avoided the service of statutory notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act and,
therefore, the same should be treated as properly and duly served on accused. The
Original cheque and the original memo of cheque returned and the notice sent and
returned with an endoresement of postal department for the same are hereby
annexed and marked as Annexure-B Colly.

7.. The aforesaid notice was issued in the prescribed time limit. That the notice sent
by the complainant was willfully avoided and, therefore, the same should be
treated as duly served upon the accused and, therefore, the accused has committed
offence punishable U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and therefore
the accused deserves to be held guilty and punished U/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.

8.. Since, the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court
and the offence has taken place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, this
Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try this complaint.

9.. The complainant craves leave to add, amend, vary, rescind, modify any of the
above mentioned ground/ averments made in the aforesaid complaint.

8
 10..Therefore, the complainant prays that

(A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit this Complaint and kindly order the
required process to be issued against the Accused to meet the end of justice as
quickly as possible;

(B) The Accused should be punished for the maximum period as provided under
Sec.138 of N. I. Act and also be ordered to pay the fine of maximum amount
that can be imposed on the Accused by Hon’ble Court as provided under the
Act;

(C) Any other relief which is expedient in the interest of justice be also awarded.

Verified by me on this day of , 2019, at Ahmedabad.

Place: AHMEDABAD. …………………………

Date: / /2021 COMPLAINANT

VERIFICATION

I Mr. Pankaj S. Gupta, Age 44 years, residing at address given as above to the complaint,
do hereby state that what is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge, information
and belief.

Solemnly affirmed at, on day of , 2021

Deponent

8
4.4 CONSUMER COMPLAINT

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM AT:

AHMEDABAD

C.C. NO. /2021

Complainant: Mr. Rahul Girdharilal

Bajaj, Residing at:

BE-166, Salt Lake

City, Sector-I, Bidhan

Nagar, North 24 PGS.,

Kolkata-700064.

Versus

Opponents:

(1) Applewoods Estate Pvt. Ltd.,

16, Abhishree Corporate

Park, Opp. Madhurya

Restaurant, Iscon-Ambli

Road, Ahmedabad-380058.

(2) Supal Shah

Authorized signatory of

Applewoods Estate Pvt.

8
Ltd.,

8
 16, Abhishree Corporate

Park, Opp. Madhurya

Restaurant, Iscon-Ambli

Road, Ahmedabad-380058.

SUBJECT: COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF CONSUMER

PROTECTION ACT, 1986

Most respectfully sheweth

1. That the complainant had booked one 2 BHK flat from the present opponents
being flat No. 505 in M Tower of the scheme named “SORREL” to purchase. The
opponent no. 1 is a company, running its business of building construction as well
as sale of the unit of the constructed building from its registered office situated at
the address mentioned in the cause title. The opponent no. 2 is the authorized
persons of the opponent no. 1 to take decision and enter into the any agreement or
sale deed with the customer on behalf of the opponent no.1.

2. That the complainant had also paid Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of two cheques in the
year of 2010 and 2012 respectively to the opponents herein. Thus it is not
disputed that the complainant had complied with the payment terms stipulated by
the opponents herein for booking of the above said unit i.e. flat No. 505.
Subsequently on 20.03.2014, One notarized “Booking Agreement” has been
executed between the opponents and the complainant. In the said “Booking
Agreement”, amount of the said flat as well as other charges such as Auda
charges, Maintenance charges, and Development charges in connection with unit
were clearly mentioned. Moreover, the present opponents had also mentioned
payment stages and service tax categorically vide Annexure 6 in the said
“Booking Agreement” as per which the complainant had to pay the consideration
of the flat. The Xerox copy of the “Booking Agreement” dated 20.03.2014 is
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A to this complaint.

9
3. After some time, the complainant had requested to the opponents hereinto cancel
the booked flat since he was not in a position to pay slab wise further payment on
time as per the conditions mentioned in the agreement on account of loss in business
due to sudden death of complainant’s father and thereby he had request to the
opponents to return his money which was paid by him for booking of the said flat.
The opponents did not consider the request of the complainant but put forth a
proposal that they will sell it directly to the customer brought by the complainant
after completion of the customer’s full payment towards the said flat, he will
return the booking amount i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- back to the complainant. As the
complainant left with no alternative but to follow the proposal of the opponents,
he brought another customer to purchase the above said flat to the opponents. It is
to note that new customer had made full payment (as per the revised calculations)
towards the said flat to the opponents and after that, the opponents had senta
cheque of Rs. 6,23,917/- (in words Six Lakhs Twenty-Three Thousand Nine
Hundred Seventeen Rupees) of Yes Bank vide cheque no. 019739 dated
31.03.2018 thus the opponents had cut Rs.1,76,083/- without giving any reason. The
Xerox copy of the said cheque of Rs. 6,23,917 dated 31.03.2018 is annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure-B to this complaint.

4. Immediately after the receipt of the above said cheque, the complainant had
inquired about the short of Rs. 1,76,083/- from the opponents. But the opponents
had sent one letter on 08.05.2018, wherein it was stated that “This is to inform
you that Mr. Rahul Bajaj who had booked unit no. M-505 in our scheme
“Sorrel” in Applewood’s Township has gone for the cancellation of said unit.
The applicable service tax of Rs. 1,76,093/- (Rupees One Lac Seventy-Six
Thousand & Ninety-Three Only) on the said unit had been duly deposited by
us vide challan enclosed herewith and till date no refund/ credit has been
claimed by us on cancellation of the said unit. The amount paid to us by Mr.
Rahul Bajaj has been duly refunded post deduction of service tax. “The
above mentioned
9
 reply vide letter dated 08.05.2018 was contrary to the “Booking Agreement” as
well as Ledger Account dated 27.02.2017 which was provided to the complainant
by the Opponents only. It is to note that the service tax levied upon each payment
stage wise was clearly mentioned in the ledger account balance and therefore the
story of making full payment of service tax qua said flat in advance by the
opponents in the letter dated 08.05.2018 cannot be believed. It is also to note that
subsequent to the receipt of your reply dated 08.05.2018 the complainant had tried
to get the satisfactory answer in relation to amount which was wrongly deducted
by the opponents, but the opponents had never replied satisfactorily in that
regards The copy of the Ledger Account dated 27.02.2017 is annexed hereto and
marked as Annexure-C to this complaint.
5. It is also to be submitted that the opponents had provided a challan to the
complainant to show that the full service tax has been paid by the opponents
against the above said flat of the complainant, but it was not revealing the same
facts. On the contrary the challan was showing transactions with respect to
payment of service tax of whole Applewood’s Estate Private Ltd which was
general in nature. The copy of the Challan provided to the complainant is annexed
hereto and marked as Annexure- D to this complaint.
6. Thus the opponents had not provided any particular document which was specific
enough to show that the payment of service tax towards the said flat i.e. 505 had
been already made by the opponents herein in advance. It became apparent that
the opponents had wrongly cut the amount on the pretext of payment of full
service tax from the complainant, despite of the fact that the opponents had
already received the full payment in accordance with the revised calculation from
the new customer which included service tax and other charges.

7. It is also to be submitted that the opponents could have claimed for reverse the
entry of service tax from the service tax department, but they did not do so since
no full payment of service tax with respect to above said flat had been made by
them. If the booking agreement and ledger balance provided to the complainant
be considered, then also the service tax levied on the payment of Rs. 8,00,000/-

9
would

9
 be Rs. 21,516/- as per the calculation to show how the service tax would be cut on
stage wise payment. Thus the remaining amount of Rs.778484, after deduction of
the slab wise service tax, ought to be return to the complainant. The opponents
have made unfair trade practice by pocketing the amount of Rs. 1,76,083/- on the
pretext of payment of full service tax with an oblique motive to usurp the money
of the complainant and therefore the complainant has sent a legal notice on
25.07.2018 to the opponents through his advocate by the R.P.A.D. mode. It is also to
be submitted that the legal notice dated 25.07.2018 has been duly served to the
opponents herein, but no reply with respect to said legal notice has been given by
the opponents herein till today. Copies of the legal notice dated 25.07.2018 along
with the R.P.A.D. slips and delivery report are annexed hereto and marked as
Annexure-E (Collectively) to this complaint.
8. That the opponents have pocketed the above said amount of Rs. 1,76,083
wrongfully by showing false grounds whereas he has received all the payment as
well other charges from the customer which was brought by the complainant to
avail his amount back as per the conditions. Further he had not given any reply of
the legal notice to the complainant and therefore the complainant is constrained to
file present consumer complaint.
9. The opponents have presented a story of payment of full service tax and thereby
wrongfully had cut the Rs. 1,76,083/- for their own benefits. Since the claim of
the complainant is below Rs. 25,00,000/- this Hon’ble forum has pecuniary
jurisdiction to plead this matter.
10. The registered office of the opponents from where they are running their business
is in Bopal, Ahmedabad. Therefore, this Hon’ble court has territorial jurisdiction
to conduct this matter.
11. The complainant was in dire need of money due to financial loss in business and
therefore he sought cancellation of booked flat. The opponents should have
returned the money, but despite of returning it they had put forwarded conditions
to bring another customer and after completion of the full payment pertaining to
the said flat by the new customer, they had wrongly deducted the amount i.e. Rs.
1,76,083/- on the pretext of full payment of service tax which is unfair trade

9
 practice. So in view of the above fact and circumstances the complainant felt
cheated and suffered huge loss in business due to sending a cheque of less
amount
i.e. Rs. 6,23,917/- instead of the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- . Moreover, the
complainant has to pass through mental torture and harassment due to unfair trade
practice the opponents.
12. Therefore, the complainant prays before this Hon’ble Forum that:
(A) This Hon’ble Forum may direct to the opponents herein to pay Rs.
1,76,083/- back which was wrongly deducted by them at the 12% rate of
interest jointly or severally.
(B) This Hon’ble forum may direct to the opponents herein Rs. 10,000/- as a
compensation for mental harassment and torture suffered by the
complainant because of unfair trade practice of the opponents.
(C) This Hon’ble court may direct to the opponents to pay of Rs. 10,000/- as a
coast of this case.
Place: --------------------------------------

Date: (Advocate for the complainant)

AFFIDAVIT

I, Rahul Bajaj S/o, Girdharilal Bajaj, Aged: Years, Religion:

Hindu, residing at: BE-166, Salt Lake City, Sector- I, Bidhan Nagar, North 24
PGS., Kolkata-700064, the applicant herein, do hereby state on oath and affirm
that the averments and statements made in the Paragraph No. to of the
above said complaint are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I
believe same to be true. Paragraph No.12 is a prayer clause.

Solemnly affirmed on this day of October, 2021 at Kolkata.

9
DEPONENT

9
4.5 NOTICE UNDER SECTION SECTION 138 OF THE
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT,1881

Advocate Shamin Khureshi, High court of Gujarat

Registration no…….

Office: Ahmedabad
Residing at b/7 bhaktinagar
Part 1, Ahmedabad.
Dated: - -2021

NOTICE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT

To,
Mr shakuntala shah,aged 25 years
Residing at Amarkala
Apartments Shahibaug
Ahmedabad-349961

Notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

Respected sir,

On behalf of the information received from my client Akash Mehta I shall address the
following,

That my client and you have happened to have known each other from a long period of
time. My client has been running his business in ready-made clothes in Ahmedabad and
that his business is a wholesale business and supplies the same in the city.

This is to address that you have also started a similar business as a retailer and used to

9
purchase already made clothes from the shop of my client on credit and make payment as

9
agreed between you both and have been regular in making payments is what has been
stated by my client in the form of cheques.

On 24-2-2019 you had purchased material worth RS 59000 and issued a cheque in the
name of my client of the same amount.

The cheque was thereby as usual presented to the banker by my client on 2-3-2019 for
encashment.

The same cheque was returned to my client due to insufficient funds in the account and
thereby you shall be considered to be held liable under the provisions of section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments act and the provision others than this applicable.

That my client calls you to make the payment if Rs 59000 within a period of 15 days
from the date of this notice not abiding to which my client shall be forced to take action
against you including filling a Complaint which shall he noted.

The following fees of RS 1000 shall be paid for the purpose of issuance of this notice
necessitated by you.

Yours faithfully,
Advocate Shamin Khureshi

9
4.6 APPEAL AND REVISION BEFORE CONSUMER COMMISSION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL GUJARAT STATE
COMMISSION

AT AHMEDABAD

APPEAL NO. OF 2021.

(Appeal Preferred against Order dated 30.09.2015

passed by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District)

Honda Car

Ltd. Ground

Floor,

S. G. Road,

Makarba,

Ahmedabad. ….. Appellant

Versus

1. Jignesh Patel

Sun Step Raw House,

Gurukul

Ahmedabad.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

Ltd. Zodiac Square, 3rd Floor,

Off No. 7 to 9,

Opp. Gurudwara,

S. G. Road, Bodakdev,

Ahmedabad. Respondents

9
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

The appellant above named respectfully submits as under:

1. The present appellant has preferred this Appeal being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2020 passed by
the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in
Complaint No.425/2021. A certified copy of the said Order is produced herewith
and marked as ‘Annexure A’.

2. The brief facts leading the present case are as under:

2.1 The appellant is the authorised dealer of Honda Cars. The respondent no. 2 is
carrying on business of various types of insurance. The respondent no.1 i.e. the
original complainant had insured his car bearing registration no. GJ-1-KF-7328
with the present respondent no. 2 i.e. the original opponent no. 1. The said car met
with an accident on 02.07.2013 with another vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-
12-X-1125. The said car was brought to the workshop of the appellant. The
appellant appointed a surveyor and an estimate of repairs was prepared. The
respondent no. 1 intimated the respondent no. 2 insurance company.

The respondent no. 2 appointed a surveyor viz. SAP Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to assess
the loss / repair cost of the insured vehicle. After detailed survey, the surveyor
submitted Final Survey Report on 08.12.2014 and assessed the loss to the tune of
Rs.4,64,750.87. Further, it was categorically observed that the car was repairable.
The actual loss assessed by the surveyor amounted to Rs.4,64,750.87. The said loss
was not more than 75% of IDV. Therefore, the respondent no. 2 did not accept the
total loss basis and sanctioned the repairs on the said vehicle. Further, the
respondent no. 1 himself intimated the appellant to proceed with the repair of the
said car.

2.2 The appellant submits that there was disagreement by and between the respondent
no.1 and the respondent no. 2 regarding whether the car should be treated as total

9
 loss or not. The appellant submits that the respondent no. 1 did not accept the
surveyed amount as sanctioned by the respondent no. 2 and, therefore, the
respondent no. 1 filed the complaint before the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad. A copy of the complaint is produced at Annexure
B.

2.3 The appellant very specifically and categorically states that the appellant is not in
any manner involved with the insurance of the said car. The appellant has no
decision making power with respect to any insurance claim that may be made.
The appellant has no right of any nature whatsoever regarding the acceptance or
rejection of a claim. All such claims are surveyed, evaluated and decided upon by
the respondent no. 2 insurance company. Under the circumstances, pursuant to
making the claim for insurance by the respondent no.1, the appellant had no say
in the matter of the claim. Further, the appellant was assured by the respondent
no.1 that the matter would be settled by and between the respondent no.1 and
respondent no. 2 inter se and that the appellant would not be responsible in any
manner.

2.4 The appellant submits that upon receiving instructions from the respondent no.1
and no. 2 to repair the said car, the appellant undertook the repair work and has
completed the repair work and the said car in is road worthy condition since long
time. The appellant submits that the said car is lying in road worthy condition at
the workshop of the appellant.

2.5 The present appellant has learnt about the Complaint No. 202 of 2014 as well as
the order dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ahmedabad, when the present appellant was served upon with a copy of
Appeal No. 377 of 2016 filed by the respondent no. 2. The appellant submits that
the dispute regarding the claim amount is a matter between the respondent no.1
and respondent no. 2 inter se.

The appellant submits that there has been no deficiency in service or negligence
on the part of the appellant. The appellant has repaired the car and the said car is
lying in road worthy condition at the premises of the appellant. In spite of the
9
same, the

9
 respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 have failed to pay the costs towards the
same to the appellant. Under the circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay
any amount to the respondent no. 1. On the contrary, the respondent no.1 and
respondent no. 2 are liable to pay the repair costs to the appellant.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated
30.09.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ahmedabad Rural in Complaint No. 425 of 2018, the appellant has preferred this
Appeal on the following amongst other grounds:

GROUNDS

(A) The impugned judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Forum in erroneous and
bad in law and therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(B) The impugned judgment is against the settled legal position and therefore the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(C) The Hon’ble Forum has erred in not discharging the appellant on the ground of mis-
joinder of parties. No prayer has been sought for against the appellant and no
deficiency in service has been alleged against the appellant. The appellant is
merely a formal party to the complaint.

(D) The Hon’ble Forum has failed to consider that the respondent no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 instructed the appellant to proceed with the repair work and in
accordance with the same the appellant has proceeded with and completed the
repair work and that the said car is lying in road worthy condition at the workshop
of the appellant.

(E) The Hon’ble Forum has failed to appreciate that the appellant is not in any
manner involved with the insurance of the said car. The appellant has no decision
making power with respect to any insurance claim that may be made. The

1
appellant has no right of any nature whatsoever regarding the acceptance or
rejection of a claim.

1
 Further, with respect to the claim for insurance by the respondent no.1, the
appellant had no say of any nature whatsoever in the matter of the claim. Under
the circumstances, the appellant is merely a formal party and no reliefs can be
granted against the appellant.
(F) The Hon’ble Forum has failed to take into consideration that there has been no
deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the appellant. Upon receiving
instructions from the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 to repair the said car,
the appellant has proceeded with the repair work and the said car is lying in road
worthy condition at the premises of the appellant. The appellant has raised bill in
the name of the respondent no.1 towards costs of repair which includes price of
replaced / repaired parts and labour costs. In spite of the same, the respondent
no.1 has failed to pay the amount of the said bill and has also failed to take
delivery of the said car.
(G) The Hon’ble Forum ought to have considered that the appellant has satisfactorily
repaired the said car and that the appellant ought to be paid for the repairing costs
for the same.
(H) The Hon’ble Forum has improperly relied upon the alleged letter produced by the
original complainant. The appellant submits that the original complainant had
alleged that the present appellant had addressed a letter to the original
complainant that the said car was a total loss. However, such letter does not bear
any seal or signature of the appellant and as such cannot be relied upon.
(I) The Hon’ble Forum has erred in directing the original opponents to consider the
claim on non-standard basis and pay 75% of IDV of insured car i.e. Rs.6,31,310/-
to the original complainant. It would be pertinent to note here insurance and
claims arising with respect to the same are the subject matter of the respondent
no.2 insurance company. The appellant herein has neither any authority nor any
power to take any claim related decisions and / or to pay any amounts towards
claims. Under the circumstances, the present appellant ought not to be directed to
pay any amount to the original complainant towards any claim.

1
(J) The Hon’ble Forum has erred in holding the original opponents responsible and
directing the original opponents to pay to the original complainant the amount of
Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental stress and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs.
(K) The Hon’ble Forum has erred in not taking into consideration the prayer sought
for by the original complainant. The original complainant has sought for the
amount payable to him under the policy as the car met with an accident during the
subsistence of the policy. The respondent no. 2 insurance company is solely
liable for payment of all claims and the appellant is not liable for the same in any
manner whatsoever. Under the circumstances, the appellant is merely a formal
party and the appellant ought not to be directed to pay any amount to the
respondent no.1 towards any claim under the insurance policy.
(L) The impugned order has been passed without due application of mind and without
considering the provisions of law.
(M) Even otherwise, the order of the Hon’ble Forum is erroneous and bad in law and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or rescind any of the averments
and grounds made herein above with the kind permission of this Hon’ble
Commission.

5. The appellant, therefore, prays that:

(A) The Hon’ble Commission be pleased to admit and grant this appeal;

(B) The Hon’ble Commission be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in Complaint No. 402 of
2018;

(C) The Hon’ble Commission be pleased to stay the execution and

implementation of the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the
Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad District, in
Complaint No. 425 of 2018, pending hearing and final disposal of the
present appeal;

1
 (D) Any other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper be granted
in favour of the appellant.

Date:

Place: Ahmedabad.

Appellant

Honda Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Through Authorized Signatory

VERIFICATION

I, KalpeshShah Authorized Signatory of Honda Pvt.Ltd adult, residing at

Ahmedabad, the authorised person of the appellant, do hereby verify and state
that what is stated herein above is true and correct.

Date:

Place: Ahmedabad.

1
 AFFIDAVIT

I, Kalpesh Shah Authorized Signatory of Honda Pvt. Ltd of MajdurCarz. Pvt. Ltd, adult,
residing at Ahmedabad, do hereby state on solemn affirmation and make this Affidavit as
under:

1. I am the Authorized Signatory of the appellant and being conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case am competent to make this Affidavit.

2. I have read and understood the contents of the foregoing Appeal and state that what is
stated therein is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I believe
the same to be true.

What is stated herein above is true and correct.

Solemnly affirmed before me on this day of 2021 at Ahmedabad.

1
4.7 WRIT OF MANDAMUS

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

DISTRICT: AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. OF 2021

In the matter of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of

the Constitution of India.

AND

In the matter under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India

AND

In the matter of sections 164 and 167

Companies Act, 2013

AND

In the matter between:

Pramod Rakeshbhai Patel

Male, Age: 65 years, Occupation: Business,

Residing at: 5423 Twin Creeks Dr,

Valrico Florida

Usa-33594 . ..Petitioner

1
 Versus

1. Union of India
Notice to be served

through The Secretary

Ministry of Corporate

Affairs Shastri Bhavan, New

Delhi

2. The Registrar of
Companies ROC Bhavan,

Opp. Rupal Park

Sociaty, Bh. Ankur Bus

Stand,

Naranpura, Ahmedabad ...Respondents

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND THE OTHER HON’BLE

JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF

1
GUJARAT AT SOLA, AT

AHMEDABAD

1
 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH THAT

1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner are challenging the actions of the
Respondents whereby the Respondent no. 1 has declared the Petitioner as
Disqualified Directors by deactivating the Director Identification Number (for the
sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred to as "DIN") of the Petitioner
pursuant to the list dated 14.08.2020 of Struck Off Companies under Section 248
r/w. 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 (for the sake of brevity and
convenience hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The Petitioner respectfully submit that the said act of the Respondents is without
any prior notice to the Petitioner and/or affording any opportunity of hearing to
the Petitioner in gross abuse of process of law and in complete violation of the
principles of natural justice.

3. The list of purportedly Disqualified Directors has not been published by the
Respondent no.1 but it came to the notice of the Petitioner that the DIN of the
Petitioner has been deactivated some time in 2020 and the said act is done without
any application of mind and is completely unreasonable and arbitrary. The
respondent authorities are clubbing all such persons who are reflected in the
records the Registrar of Companies as Directors of Struck Off/ Defaulter
Companies without carrying out any inquiry/ investigation/due diligence
whatsoever and have consequently deactivated the DIN numbers. The Respondent
no.2 has thus prejudged the entire issue on the ground that all such persons
including the Petitioner are purported defaulters.

1
4. Thus, the actions of Respondents in deactivating the DIN numbers of the
Petitioner in the said list and declaring the Petitioner as Disqualified Directors is
manifestly unilateral, highhanded, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and in complete
violation of the principles of natural justice, and is further violative of Petitioner'
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India, 1950.

5. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as under: -

1.1 The Petitioner respectfully submits that the Petitioner are nationals and citizens of
India. The Petitioner is persons of repute having the knowledge and experience in
the business of business, employers and professional organisations, etc. The
Petitioner has a right to enforce their fundamental rights as enshrined under the
Constitution of India.

1.2 The Respondents are the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Registrar of
Companies. The Respondent authorities deactivated the DIN of the Petitioner
under Section 164(2)(a) of the Act without any notice and the same has not been
published on the website of the Respondent no. 1.

1.3 The Petitioner respectfully submit that the Petitioner are holding the position as
Directors in the following companies: -
Petitioner no. 1 is a director in the following companies:

i. Z9 Data Drive Private Limited

ii. IN toft Solutions Private Limited

iii. Stat Billing Solutions Private Limited

A copy of the List of Companies in which the Petitioner Are Directors is annexed
hereto and marked as "Annexure-A".

1
1.4 The authorized share capital of the said Company is Rs. -500000/- and Paid up
Capital was Rs 125000/-. The present Petitioner no.1 was appointed as a director
of the said company on 13.10.1995 and petitioner no.2 and no. 2 were appointed
as Directors of the said Company since the date of incorporation. A copy of the
Master Data of the company is annexed herewith and marked "Annexure-B"

1.5 The Petitioner respectfully submit that the objects of the company were to
Software publishing, consultancy and supply Software publishing includes
production, supply and documentation of ready-made (non-customized) software,
operating systems software, business & other applications software, computer
games software for all platforms.

1.6 The Petitioner submits that the Company initially for one year after its
incorporation filed all statutory returns regularly. However, thereafter, since 2014
the Company had been facing acute financial crisis due to which the Company
was not able to do any business. The Company therefore could not file statutory
returns including balance sheet, annual return, etc. with the office of respondent
no.2.

1.7 The Petitioner submit that the respondent no.2 addressed a letter dated 9.5.2020
in Form No.STK-1 under the provisions of Sec. 248(1) and (2) of Companies Act,
2013 intimating the Petitioner about its intention to remove the name of the
Company from the Register of Companies and calling upon the petitioner to send
representation along with copies of relevant documents, if any.

1.8 The Petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 issued public notices dated
10.5.2020 in Form No. STK-5 u/s. 248(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 declaring a
list of companies sought to be struck off from the Register of Companies wherein
the name of the company was listed.

1
 1.9 The Petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 issued circular of striking off and
dissolution under Form No. STK-7 dated 14.8.2020 and 17.10.2020 thereby
declaring the list of companies which have been struck off from the register of
companies and are dissolved w.e.f. 6.8.2020. A copy of the notification dated
14.8.2020 and 17.10.2020 issued by respondent no.2 along with relevant excerpt
of list of companies, in which the name of the Company is included is annexed
herewith and marked as "Annexure-C".

1.10 The petitioner therefore carried out search and upon inquiry, it was found that not
only the name of the Company has been struck off, but the names of petitioner is
also disqualified. That in pursuance of the aforesaid Circulars, the Respondents
deactivated the DSC and DIN numbers of the Petitioner thereby preventing them
from filing any documents with regards to “Z9 Data Drive Private Limited” and
has resultantly made the Petitioner ineligible to act as directors in other companies
which are fully functioning and have been regularly complying with all statutory
provisions of the Act. A copy of the screen shot from the website of the
respondent no. 1 wherein it shows that the DIN of the Petitioner has been
deactivated under section 164 of the Act is annexed herewith and marked as
annexure as "Annexure- D Colly".

1.11 That the Respondents without even serving a show cause notice upon the
Petitioner or even affording the Petitioner an opportunity to justify their position,
the Respondent No. 1 issued the impugned Circulars and subsequently without
publishing a list have deactivated the DIN of the Petitioner which reflects on the
website of Respondent No. 1 thereby immediately disqualifying the Petitioner
under Section 164(2)(a) r/w Section 167(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Therefore, it is a patent violation of the Petitioner Fundamental Right to be heard
and is a clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as laid down under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11
1.12 That Section 164(2)(a) is manifestly unjust and unreasonable as it not only
disqualifies those Directors who were Directors of the concerned Private
Company during the relevant more than three years during which the default was
committed, but also those persons who have been the Directors of the said
company in the past as well. Section 164 of Companies Act 2013 came to be
notified on 01/04/2014. Section 164 (2) (a) reads as follows:

“164. DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR –

(2) No person who is or has been a director of a company which-

(a) has not filed financial statements or annual returns for any continuous
period of three financial years; or

(b) has failed to repay the deposits accepted by it or pay interest thereon or
to redeem any debentures on the due date or pay interest due thereon or
pay any dividend declared and such failure to pay or redeem continues for
one year or more,

shall be eligible to be re-appointed as a director of that company or

appointed in other company for a period of five years from the date on
which the said company fails to do so.”

1.13 That the immediate disqualification of the Petitioner has been affected under
Section 167(1). Additionally, Section 167(2) makes any person who is, with the
knowledge of him/her being disqualified under Section 167(1), functioning as a
Director, liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one year or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may
extend to five lakh rupees or both. Section 167reads as follows:
“167. Vacation of office of director

(1) The office of a director shall become vacant in case—

11
(a) he incurs any of the disqualifications specified in section 164;

(b) He absents himself from all the meetings of the Board of Directors
held during a period of twelve months with or without seeking leave of
absence of the Board;

(c) He acts in contravention of the provisions of section 184 relating to

entering into contracts or arrangements in which he is directly or indirectly
interested;

(d) He fails to disclose his interest in any contract or arrangement in which

he is directly or indirectly interested, in contravention of the provisions of
section 184;

(e) He becomes disqualified by an order of a court or the Tribunal;

(f) He is convicted by a court of any offence, whether involving moral

turpitude or otherwise and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment
for not less than six months:

Provided that the office shall be vacated by the director even if he has
filed an appeal against the order of such court;

(g) He is removed in pursuance of the provisions of this Act;

(h) he, having been appointed a director by virtue of his holding any office
or other employment in the holding, subsidiary or associate company,
ceases to hold such office or other employment in that company.

(2) If a person, functions as a director even when he knows that the office
of director held by him has become vacant on account of any of the
disqualifications specified in subsection (1), he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which
shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to five lakh
rupees, or with both.

11
 (3) Where all the directors of a company vacate their offices under any of
the disqualifications specified in sub-section (1), the promoter or, in his
absence, the Central Government shall appoint the required number of
directors who shall hold office till the directors are appointed by the
company in the general meeting.

(4) a private company may, by its articles, provide any other ground for
the vacation of the office of a director in addition to those specified in sub-
section (1).”

1.14 That Section 164(2)(a) does not only attract disqualification from the Company
that has defaulted in filing its Financial Statements or Annual Returns but also
from other Companies in which the disqualified person at the time of
disqualification held the office of a Director. Such a penalty is highly irrational
and unreasonable and is in grave violation of the fundamental rights of the
disqualified director under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
Moreover, the disqualification has to apply only to reappointment of directors but
not existing directorships.
1.15 Even otherwise, no due notice was served to the company’s registered address
highlighting the defaults.

1.16 The Petitioner’ reputation has also been badly tarnished due to the impugned
disqualification which is even otherwise in clear violation of principles of natural
justice and violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above facts and circumstances, the
petitioner has the petitioners herein beg to challenge the present application on the
following amongst other grounds;

11
 GROUNDS

(A) It is apparent that the impugned decisions/ declarations of the Respondents are
affiliated by manifest arbitrariness, malafides and violation of natural justice. The
illegalities on the part of Respondent are all the more stark considering that no
hearing or show cause notice whatsoever was given to the Petitioner at any point
of time before passing the impugned decision. On this ground alone i.e. violation
of natural justice and unfairness, the impugned decisions deserve to be quashed
and/or set aside.

(B) The Respondent is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India and is expected to act in a fair and reasonable manner in all spheres of its
activities. In the instant case, the actions of the Respondent are clearly arbitrary,
unreasonable and illegal and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
of India.

(C) It is a settled position of law that non-application of mind to material on record

constitutes a violation of natural justice and/or vitiates a decision taken in
ignorance thereof.

(D) This being the position of law governing Disqualification of Directors, the
Respondent without any enquiry, show cause notice or intimation and in utter
violation of principles of natural justice have disqualified the Petitioner from
holding the post of Director in any Company till 31.10.2021. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, reported at (1978) 2 SCC
248 has held that any action taken without service of notice or giving opportunity
of hearing to the notice by the State and its authorities is illegal. In the present
case also, the respondent no.2 before taking the impugned action has not served
any notice or given any opportunity of hearing. The impugned action therefore is
illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside.

11
(E) It is submitted that the Petitioner is disqualified by the respondent no.2 without
giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The impugned action
of the respondent no.2 therefore is in gross violation of principles of natural
justice and hence, null and void. The impugned action is thus in gross violation of
the rights of the Petitioner under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.

(F) The Petitioner submit that under the New Act which came to be notified replacing
the 1956 Act, if a Director of a Company u/s. 164(2)(a) of the Act, 2013 has not
filed the financial statements or annual returns for a continuous period of 3
financial years, then he shall not be eligible to be appointed as director of that
Company or appointed in any other company for a period of 5 years.

(G) Thus, the above provision makes it clear that if a Director of the Company has not
filed any financial statement for a continuous period of 3 financial years, then he
shall not be eligible for reappointment as director of that company or in any other
company for a period of 5 years. The provision nowhere provides that the
Director of a defaulting company shall be discontinued from the position of a
Director from other companies who have not committed any such default.
Therefore, the respondent no.2 while publishing the impugned list has
misconstrued and misinterpreted Sec. 164(2) of the Act. The impugned list
therefore is illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.

(H) The impugned action of the respondent no.2 in disqualifying the Petitioner as
directors qua other active companies has far reaching and grave ramifications and
could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice.

(I) The impugned action of the respondent no.2 is not only highhanded but is also
arbitrary. The Respondent no.2 has also fully predetermined the issues and
without application of mind has passed the impugned decision. The respondent
no.2 has failed to appreciate that the Petitioner cannot be disqualified u/s. 248 of

11
the Act.

11
 (J) Further, the action of the Respondent is not merely an administrative action but a
quasi-judicial action which necessarily warranted compliance with the principles
of natural justice. It is submitted that in view of the failure of the Respondent to
follow the principles of natural justice, the disqualification of the Petitioner from
acting as a Director is a void and ought to be set aside.

(K) In any event, it is settled law that even for an administrative action there must be
minimum standard of principles of natural justice that are to be followed. In any
event, the action taken by the Respondent no.2 is not purely an administrative action
but a quasi-judicial one having civil and evil consequences and hence, the
principles of natural justice have to be followed. Thus, the impugned action of
respondent no.2 is illegal and unsustainable in law and requires to be quashed and
set aside.

(L) If an administrative body has the power to decide and in exercise of such power,
takes a decision detrimental to the prejudice of a person, a duty is cast on such
authority to act judicially which is implicit in exercise of such power and that the
rule of natural justice operates even when the legislation does not provide for the
same specifically. It is further submitted that where there is nothing in the statute
to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity of being heard, the nature of the
statutory duty imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear
before deciding.

(M) The manner in which the Respondent has conducted itself tantamount to a gross
abuse and misuse of power and is also vitiated by patent malafide. Ex facie, the
conduct of the Respondent is without jurisdiction, without authority of law
contrary to law and is void ab initio.

(N) The arbitrary acts of the Respondent have caused grave injury to the Petitioner
and have curtailed the Petitioner’ fundamental right to carry on business as

11
guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

11
 3. For the reasons as stated above, the Petitioner has an overwhelming/prima facie
case on merits. The factors of irreparable harm, loss and injury and the balance of
convenience are in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent. If the
Impugned List is not stayed as against the Petitioner, the Petitioner will be put to
great hardship and his fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution will be prejudicially affected. Therefore, in the interest of justice
intervention of this Hon'ble Court is called for at this stage itself.

4. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is entitled to institute and/or maintain
the present petition against the Respondent who is State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and as such amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Further, action of the Respondent has impacted
the Petitioner’ Directorship and consequently, their rights to do business within
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the present petition.

5. The impugned action is afflicted by manifest arbitrariness and violation of the

principles of natural justice. The Petitioner is therefore entitled to impugn the
same and seek judicial review thereof as and by way of the present petition.

6. The Petitioner has no other alternative and/or equally efficacious remedy. The
reliefs prayed for in this petition alone if granted, would do complete, full and
effective justice to the Petitioner.

7. The Petitioner has not filed any other petition either in this Hon'ble Court, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; or in any other High Court, with regard to the
subject matter of present petition.

11
 8. The Petitioner crave leave to add, amend, alter or rescind the memo of petition, if
and when found necessary.
9. The Petitioner, therefore, pray that-
A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the
Respondents:
(i) to reactivate and defreeze the DIN of the Petitioner;

(ii) to refrain from acting upon and/or implementing the impugned disqualification;

(iii) to quash and set aside the action of the Respondents of deactivating the DIN
of the Petitioner u/s 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 which are 01782239 and
subsequently, activate the said DIN numbers of the Petitioner.

B) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to: -
(i) to reactivate and defreeze the DIN of the Petitioner;

(ii) to direct the Respondent to accept all applications, filings including e-filing by
the Petitioner in their capacity as Directors of all Companies set out at Annexure-
A and not to treat the Petitioner as disqualified director’s u/s 164 of the Act hereto

C) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief that this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the larger interest of substantial justice.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL ALWAYS PRAY
FOR.

Place: Ahmedabad.

Date: / /2021 (Advocate for the Petitioner)

AFFIDAVIT

I,Pramod Rakeshbhai Patel, S/O- Rakesh Bhai Patel, Age: 65 years, Occupation:
Business, Residing at: 5423 Twin Creeks Dr, Valrico Florida USA-33594, so
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath that the content of para to of the petition

12
are the true statement of facts on the basis of my knowledge, information, belief
and records; and the content of para to are the legal submission and the content of
para is the prayer clause.

Solemnly affirmed and declared to be true today on this day of _

2021.

Deponent

Identified by me

Advocate

12