Delhi District Court
Parveen Sahni vs M. Muralidhara on 3 February, 2012
Parveen Sahni Vs M. Muralidhara C.C.No.5395/11 03.02.2012
Statement of Ct. Pradeep Kumar, No. 811/C, PS Karol Bagh On S.A. On 03.06.2008, I went to Shop no. 3-4, Near Vijaya Bank, Chander Nagar, Bus stand Hyderabad. Affixation has been done on the door of above said Shop No. 3-4. That it is also known to the general public through shouting to make aware. That is also affixed on the notice board of the court. On 11.06.2008, this is also published in the newspaper, Dainik Swatantrta Varta. The address is also verified, that the accused is presently working in that shop and there is confirmed process of Section 82 Cr.P.C.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Aman Nayyar Vs. Mohit Wadhwa C.C.No.5748/1 03.02.2012 At 11 am.
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Ld. counsel for complainant seeks pass over on the ground that counsel for the accused in not present.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 At 1 pm. Present: Both the parties along with their counsels.
Ld. counsel for accused has filed new Vakalatnama. Ld. counsel for accused is seeking one more opportunity to advance arguments that he has been engaged today itself, which is opposed by the Ld. counsel for complainant.
It appears that a deliberate attempt has been made on the part of the accused to delay the matter. In the morning he has sought time for want of counsel. Now, he has changed the counsel itself. It appears that several opportunities have been given for final arguments. Considering the conduct of accused, no further opportunities is given. However, taking into account the fact that arguments is necessary for the just disposal of the case. One more opportunity is given to the accused. Adjournment is subject to cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited to DLSA, within 10 days.
List on 24.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Master Dilshad Vs. Krishna Kumar C.C.No.6437/1 03.02.2012 Present: Both the parties along with their counsels.
Accused admitted on bail as offence is bailable one. Accused has furnished his bail bond and surety bond with the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Accused furnished the same. Accepted.
Acquisition explained over to the accused. His plea and examination recorded separately. Accused also file an application U/s 145 (2) N.I. Act. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that he will supply the copy during the course of the day.
List for reply, arguments and disposal of this application on 24.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Vinod Dhawan Vs. Kanchan Batra C.C.No.3468/10 03.02.2012 At 11 am.
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Ld. counsel for complainant seeks pass over on the ground that counsel for the accused in not present.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Sh. Rajesh Khanna Vs. Mohd. Mahir C.C.No.3389/10 03.02.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Accused seeks pass over, for the want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Nandit Kaur Vs. Umesh Ahuja C.C.No. 1157/10 03.02.2012 Present: Husband of the complainant along with counsel.
Accused in person.
Complainant has filed written submissions. Accused seeks an adjournment on the ground that his counsel is not available. One opportunity is given to the accused.
List on 13.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Sh. Vinod K. Dhawan Vs. Kanchan Batra C.C.No. 3468/1 03.02.2012 At 11 a.m. Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 At 2 pm. Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused did not take any steps in his defence. Further opportunity to lead DE is closed.
List for final arguments on 24.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 M/s Merits Capital Market Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Samarth Aggarwal C.C.No. 6442/11 03.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused admitted on bail as offence is bailable one. Accused has furnished his bail bond with the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. Accused furnished the same. Accepted. Acquisition is explained over to the accused. His plea and examination recorded separately. He want to file an application U/S 145 N.I. Act. He may do so. That advance copy to the complainant sufficiently supplied before the next date.
List for filing of application, reply, arguments and disposal of such application, if filed by the accused and in the absence thereof for DE on 30.0.2012. At request of both the Ld. counsel date is changed to 01.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Rajesh Khanna Vs. Mohd. Mahir C.C.No. 3389/10 03.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
I have heard both the parties on the point of sentence. Ld. counsel for the convict submits that on the ground that convict belongs to very poor family and is the sole bread earner in the family having responsibility of old parents and two younger brothers who are studying.
As against this complainant submits that he has suffered a lot due to the conduct of the convict and the cheque pertains to the year 2006. Convict filed in February 2007.
Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that aegis of the justice be met.
The convict is directed to suffer a simple imprisonment of six months to give with a fine of Rs. 7 lacs. First proviso of U/S 143 NI Act, in default of payment of fine. Convict further suffer a simple imprisonment of 2 months, out of fine of Rs. 5 lac to be paid to the complainant as compensation in Sec 351(1) Cr.P.C. Remaining amount to be deposited with the state. Convict has move an application for suspension of sentence. The sentence is suspended for one month or till the filing of appeal whichever is earlier. Convict is admitted on bail on submission of bail bond and surety bond with tune of Rs. 20,000/-. He furnish the same. Accepted. File be consigned to record room. A copy of the order be given on dasti to convict.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Vijay Kr. Gupta Vs. Vijay C.C.No. 192/1 03.02.2012 Present: AR of the complainant along with proxy counsel Ms. Asha Garg.
Accused with counsel.
Vide separate judgment, accused is convicted for the offences charged.
Let the parties be present on 13.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 C.C.No. 2250 03.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsel.
Both the witness summoned but not present.
Notice be issued afresh to the witnesses.
Be listed on 15.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 M/s Pipeline Products (India) Vs. M/s Tricoline Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
C.C.No. 6452/11
03.02.2012
Present: Counsel for complainant.
Summons issued to the accused received back unserved. That summons be issued. Complainant may also assist the process server.
List on 31.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia Vs. Satnam Engineers & Fabricators P. Ltd.
C.C.No. 6443/103.02.2012 Present: Ld.Counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed memorandum of appearance. An application for exemption has also been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that the accused is suffering from viral fever. A bald statement has been made without any details or supporting to. The exemption been completely frivolous, is dismissed.
Ld. counsel for the accused seeks one opportunity. Only one opportunity is being given to the accused to appear and take notice. Adjournment on the cost of Rs. 3000/- is imposed upon the accused, be deposited to DLSA, within 10 days.
List on 15.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 M/s Trivedi Agencies Vs. Neeraj Gulati C.C.No. 4496/10 03.02.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Ld. counsel submits that accused has paid Rs. 30,000/- as first installment and the next installment is to be paid on 23.02.2012.
List on 23.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Thomas Cook (I) Ltd. Vs. M/s 4 fresh Retail Pvt. Ltd.
C.C.No. 4040/10
03.02.2012
Present: None.
Summons issued to the accused, received back unserved with report "Talaband"..
Let fresh summons be issued for 27.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Vijay Fabric Vs. Afzar Hussain C.C.No. 3472/1 03.02.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
It appears no one appearing on behalf of the complainant for last several dates. Only one opportunity being given to the complainant to comply with order dated 17.05.2008.
List on 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Amit Batra Vs. Vipin Sharma C.C.No. 3937/10 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed by counsel on behalf of accused on the ground that he has been advised to bed rest. The medical certificate has also been attested. Interestingly, the medical certificate is showing a bed rest from 31 January to 5 February, 2012. I failed to understand, how a doctor can issue an advice of bed rest from the back date. The exemption application is completely frivolous and therefore dismissed. It appears that on earlier occasion accused was in custody. Further, he was admitted on bail but it appears that accused has tried to delay the matter by every means.
It appears on 28.06.2011, accused was imposed but the same has not been deposited by the accused till date. Perusal of file shows that accused is unnecessarily and deliberately delaying the matter on one pretext or other. NBW issued against the accused. Matter to continue in its regular way.
List on 22.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Ravinder Vs. Deepak Kumar C.C.No. 1486/10 03.02.2012 Present: Both the parties along with their counsels.
Complainant submits that he has not received any payment from the accused. It appears that accused is deliberately delaying the matter on the pretext of settlement. It further appears that on 04.09.2011, opportunity is given to accused to lead defence evidence closed. Let one opportunity be given to accused lead defence evidence.
List on 12.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Data Equipment Vs. Ranjeet Kaur C.C.No. 6118/10 03.02.2012 File taken up on the request of the Ld. counsel.
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Ld. counsel submits that payment has been received by the accused. Complainant want to make the settlement on compounding. Separate statement recorded. Matter stands settled U/s 147 NI Act.
List before Lok Adalat on 11.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Yogender Lal Vs. Kulwaha Electronics.
C.C.No.5641/11
03.02.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
Both the Ld. counsel are not available whereas the matter is listed for reply and argument on the application moved U/s 145(2) NI Act. Both parties are praying for adjournment for want of counsel.
List on 27.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 M/s Agrioco Equipments India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Durga Tractors etc. C.C.No.1564/11 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
He submits that matter has settled and payment has been received. Statement of complainant in respect of compounding recorded. Matter extended settled U/s 147 NI Act. Let the file be submitted before Lok Adalat on 11.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Ashwani Kumar Vs. Pratap Manison C.C.No.1082/10 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
In earlier hour ASI Ravinder was also present.
Complainant submits that they have settled the matter and he has received Rs.
40,000/- from the accused. Statement of the complainant in this respect of compounding has been recorded. Matter stands compounded U/S 147 NI Act.
List for 11.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Anu Kakkar Vs. Ms. Tahira Sultana C.C.No.6272/11 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Summons received back with report Talaband. Fresh summons be issued to 27.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Brawn Biotech Ltd. Vs. B.K. Bhargav C.C.No.6399/11, 6398/11, 6397/11 03.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
These are three connected matters.
Earlier process has not been received back, be awaited.
In the meantime previous order be compled with. List for 03.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 M/s Brawn Biotech Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ashutosh Singh C.C.No. 6503/2 & 6504/2 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel person.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against accused person for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Complainant has also filed fresh address of the accused stated that accused has changes name of his company. Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 24.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 M/s J D S Utilities Company Vs. M/s Western Conslink Pvt. Ltd. & Other C.C.No. 2417/10 03.02.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the Complainant.
Proxy counsel for the complainant submits that File taken up on application moved on behalf of the complainant, seeking service of summons through substituted means.
Proxy counsel for the complainant submits that complainant had deposited the cost of Rs 10,000/- surety bond. Receipt taken on record. It appears that on 17.3.2011, summons were directed to serve by way of fixation and thereafter the said order was directed to be complied with again. There is no necessity of such a application. The same is therefore dismissed. Letter dated 23.12.2012 be complied with. It appears that the date of hearing had been recently mentioned has 16.4.2011 where it should have been 16.04.2012 as the letter was dated 23.12.2012. The said letter is directed to be corrected with extent.
List for 16.4.2012 i.e. date already fixed.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Ajay Tripathi V/s Jay Singh C.C.No. 1919/10 03.02.2012 Present: None.
File taken up on application moved by the complainant for recording of appearance.
Application dismissed. List on the date fixed i.e. 09.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 C.C.No. 6573/12 03.02.2012 Present: None.
File received on assignment. Let it be checked and registered.
One opportuniy is given to the complainant.
List on 12.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Ratnesh Bansal Vs. Jag Dev C.C.No. 1942/1 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person with LAC Sh. Amresh Kumar.
NBW against the accussed received back unexecuted, however accused is present.
An application for cancellation of NBW has filed on the ground that applicant accused was present on last date, however is presence was not recorded. Subsequently, part submission made in an application without any support affidavit or proof. On perusal of the file show that the accused is not appearing in the present matter for the last several dates.
He was admitted on bail on 14.5.08 and was released on personal bond on 17.8.08, he was not appearing in the matter. Again bailable warrant was executed for 22.10.2011 on that date when accused was not present again. A NBW was directed to be issued. In the factual circumstances there is no reason to blame that accused was present on the last date. The application is therefore dismissed U/s 436(2) CRPC provides that after breach in appearance accused appear on any subsequent date. The court made refuse to release him on bail. Let the accused be taken into custody. Be produced on 14.2.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 C.C.No. 1216/10 & 1228/10 03.02.2012 File taken on an application of NBW.
Present: Accused with counsel.
These are two connected matters. The ground taken on application is that on the first call accused failed to appear and he is not habitual defaulter.
On persual of order sheet goes to show that NBW was directed to be issued at 03:40pm and not on the first call. So far as habitual defaulter is concerned the same does not have any justification. However, accused executed is bound for regular apperance. Again in the present case accused there was only two occasions for the accused to appear. On one occasion he was present on second he was absent. There fore accused can not claim that he was regularlly appearing.
It further appears that the only intension for the non appearance of the accused was to avoid the procecution. On 1st November 2011 he had sought opportunity for settlement but on the date fixed i.e. 22.12.2011 he absented himself. The application is dismissed accused be taken into custody U/s 432(6)Cr.P.C.
Be produced on date fixed i.e. 07.02.2012 (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 C.C.No. 5395/11 03.02.2012 Present: Compalainant with proxy counsels.
Ct. Pradeep Kumar is present.
Statement of Ct. Pradeep Kumar is recorded.
Process server Pradeep Kumar stated that the accused is working in that shop. Let process U/s 83 Cr. P.C. issued against the accused for 06.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Ratan Lal Gupta Vs Sanjay Jain C.C.No. 4752/10 03.02.2012 Present: Parties along with their counsel.
I have heard both the parties on application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. by the complainant, Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that the documents are very necessary for just disposal of the case. Complainant has also filed an affidavit to bring on record these documents. Ld. counsel for the complainant further submits that no would be goes to the accused as cross examination has not yet started. Ld. counsel for accused submits that he should be given opportunity to do cross examination on these documents also. In these circumstances, application of the complainant is allowed. Document Ex. CW1/F Colly and Private ledger A/c Ex. CW1/G are taken on record.
Put up for cross examination on 29.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Jash Plastics India Limited Vs. Lakhani India Limited.
C.C.No. 03.02.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
These are 4 connected matter earlier process has not been received back, be awaited.
In the mean time, the previous order be also complied with. List for 27.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Anil Aggarwal Vs. Manoj Sharma C.C.No. 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
These are 9 connected matters and the files are before the Ld. Revisional court. Parties submits that date in the revisional court is 27.02.2012.
List on 17.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Philco Steel Vs Med Lab System.
C.C.No. 5162/1003.02.2012 Present: Both the parties along with their counsels The matter is listed for Defence Evidence. Ld. counsel for accused submits that accused does not want to lead any defence evidence. In this respect, separate statement of accused is recorded.
List for final arguments on 27.02.2012 after lunch.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Niranjan Lal Gupta Vs Ravinder Singh C.C.No. 6510/10 03.02.2012 Present: Both the parties along with their counsels.
Accused has filed copies of certain documents. Ld. counsel for accused will supply the the same to Ld. counsel for complainant.
Ld. counsel for complainant further submits that he will argue on the application U/s 145(2) N.I.Act directly. He further submits that he has moved an application U/s 437(5) Cr.P.C., which is still pending. It appears that Ld. Revisional court had directed to give fresh hearing on the said application. Ld. counsel for accused has not received copy of any such application. Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that he will supply the copy of the same to Ld. counsel for the accused.
List for further proceedings on 22.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Ashok Ahuja Vs. Comfort Hospitality Service etc. C.C.No. 6498/12 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel person.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against accused person for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Complainant has also filed fresh address of the accused stated that accused has changes name of his company. Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 24.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Master Dilsahd Vs. Krishna Kumar Kushwaha C.C.No. 6437/11 03.02.2012 Plea and examination of accused namely Kishan Kumar recorded U/s 251, 263(g), 313 r.w. 281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without Oath I understand the acquisition explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that there was no liability the cheque amount. The cheque was duly signed by me and given to the complainant but the same was given as compromise amount. However, subsequently the compromised amount was paid through bank transfer in the account of complainant's mother. However, complainant not returned the cheque despite demand. I do have sufficient defence in the present case which I am filing by way of an application U/s 145 (2) N.I. Act. I am also filing copies of some documents with the said application.
However, I do not dispute the legal demand notice and dishonour of cheque. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO&AC. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Sh. Brij Bhushan Attri Vs. Hari Kishan C.C.No. 4131/10 03.02.2012 Plea and examination of accused namely Hari Kishan recorded U/s 251, 263(g), 313 r.w. 281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without Oath I understand the acquisition explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that there was no liability the cheque amount. The cheque was duly signed by me and given to the complainant but the same was given as guarantee for loan taken by my sister in law from the complainant. I had received the legal demand notice from the complainant. I admit the dishonour of the cheque. I do have sufficient defence in the present case which I will file by way of an application U/s 145 (2) N.I. Act. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO&AC. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 M/s Merits Capital Market Sevices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Samarth Aggarwal C.C.No. 6442/11 03.02.2012 Plea and examination of accused namely Samarth Aggarwal U/s 251, 263(g), 313 r.w. 281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without Oath I understand the acquisition explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that there was no liability the cheque amount. The cheque was duly signed by me and given to the complainant but the same was given as security for the future purchase of the shares from the complainant company. However, I never purchased any share. I demanded for the return of the cheque but complainant never returned the same. I do have sufficient defence in the present case which I will file by way of an application U/s 145 (2) N.I. Act.
However, I do not dispute the legal demand notice but I had also received an earlier demand notice dated 22.10.2011. I do not dispute the dishonour of cheque. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO&AC. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 C.C.No. 6404/11 Dev Health Care Vs. Vimal Prashad Jain 03.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsel.
Acquisition explained over to the accused. His plea and examination recorded separately. Accused also file an application U/s 145 (2) N.I. Act. He may do so sufficiently before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to the complainant.
List for 30.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 C.C.No. 5377/1 03.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Application filed on behalf of the accused that revision petition is pending.
I consider that the such applications cannot be allowed.
Dismissed. Pendency of petition cannot be a sufficient ground for adjournment.
However, since the file is not before the court, I am not inclined to take any coercive measure against the accused.
Be listed on 13.03.2012 (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 C.C.No. 4591/10 03.02.2012 Present: None.
There is no report regarding compliance of previous order.
Ahlmad to check and report.
It appears that no one is appearing in the matter since the last several dates.
Let one opportunity be given to the complainant to assist.
Let court notice be issued against the complainant and his counsel for 24.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012 Gopal Krishan Vs. S.L. Swami C.C.No. 5252/1 03.02.2012 Present: Complainant with Proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
Complainant has filed a reply for the application of the accused moved for handwriting expert opinion.
Both the Ld. main counsels are not available.
Last opportunity is given to both the parties.
Be listed on 31.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/03.02.2012