Delhi District Court
Page No. 1 Of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal vs . M/S Crest Exports & Ors. on 21 August, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF RAKESH KUMAR RAMPURI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NI ACT) (EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
SHAHDARA, DELHI.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr.PC
a) Serial No. of the case : 55649/16
b) Date of the commission of the offence : 16.02.2007
c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal
Prop. of M/s Kanika Fabrics
d) Name of Accused persons and
their parentage and residence : 1. M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd.
2. Vikram Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. B. L. Sachdeva
3. Vikas Sachdeva
S/o Late Sh. B. L. Sachdeva,
R/o C31, Sec59, Noida, U.P.
e) Offence complained of : Dishonouring of cheques for the
reason "Stop Payment by Drawer".
f) Plea of the Accused and
his examination (if any) : Not guilty because security cheques
were issued and no fabrics were
supplied by the complainant to the
accused.
g) Final Order : Accused No. 1 & 2 held guilty &
convicted. However, accused No. 3 is
acquitted.
h) Order reserved on : 10.08.2018.
i) Order pronounced on : 21.08.2018.
Page No. 1 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
2
Brief reasons for decision:
1. The necessary facts of the case of the complainant, as reflected in the
complaint are that the complainant is proprietor of M/s Kanika Fabrics
dealing in trading of export quality fabrics and accused has been purchasing
fabrics since July, 2005. The complainant supplied fabrics worth of Rs.
63,76,799/ and accused had paid just Rs. 17,10,000/ only and after giving
credit of debit notes against refund / return of fabrics, an amount of Rs.
38,88,998/ remained outstanding against the accused. It is also the case of
the complainant that the accused had issued two cheques bearing No.
600884 dt. 30.12.2006 Ex. CW1/1 & cheque No. 600885 dt. 26.12.2006 Ex.
CW1/2 for Rs. 9,65,488/ (each) to discharge the part of outstanding
liability and said both cheques in question returned unpaid by the banker of
accused with remark "Payment Stopped by Drawer" vide returned memo
Ex. CW1/3 dt. 01.01.2007 and Ex. CW1/4 dt. 27.12.2006 respectively.
Thereafter, the complainant had got a legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 dt.
24.01.2017 sent to accused through his counsel and accused failed to pay
the demanded cheques amount within stipulated time after receiving said
demand notice. Being aggrieved from the said conduct of accused, the
complainant has filed the present written complaint case u/s 138 r/w 142 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short NI Act) on 07.03.2007. Vide
order of Ld. Predecessor dt. 25.05.2007, Vikas Sachdeva, cited as accused
no. 3 was dropped as there was no connecting evidence qua his liability u/s
138 of NI Act.
2. On the other hand, accused No. 2 Vikram Sachdeva, who was also
Page No. 2 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
3
representing accused company admitted that he had signed cheques in
question and also filled the entire contents appearing on the same except
the date. He further admitted that the cheques in question had been given to
the complainant but pleaded that the same were given as security because
complainant had to supply fabrics of Rs. 38,00,000/ to him and same was
not supplied by the complainant. Accused Vikram Sachdeva also admitted
that he was director of accused company during relevant time and he was
also participating in the business of accused company (see the statement of
accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C.). Accused did not lead any defence evidence
despite of opportunity afforded to them for the same.
3. Complainant Sh. Shyam Sunder Aggarwal (CW1) examined as sole
witness for proving his case. During crossexamination CW1 stated that the
material was supplied in three wheeler vehicle and he negated the
suggestion of the defence as to he had not supplied the fabrics in respect of
which cheques in question were given to him. Complainant (CW1) filed
some order forms Ex. CW1/B and stated that some time the orders, were
made on telephone. He also filed cash memo and challans in respect of
supply of fabrics same were Ex. CW1/8 to Ex. CW1/97. CW1 admitted
that some times, part of supplied fabrics used to be returned and debit
memo in that respect used to be prepared and same are Ex. CW1/C1 to Ex.
CW1/C13. He negated the suggestion of accused as to no fabrics were
actually supplied to the accused firm against said challans because the same
bears the signature of employee of accused and entry used to be made in
their register. CW1 also negated the suggestion of the defence as to ledger
account of accused firm maintained by him Ex. CW1/D was fabricated.
CW1 stated that for assessment year 20052006, the list of sundry debtors
Page No. 3 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
4
was filed and the name of Crest Export appeared with liability of
recoverable amount of Rs. 40,94,792.35/ and same were Ex. CW1/E & Ex.
CW1/F. The complainant clarified that there was no bilty challan because
the three wheeler was local transport and cartridge was added in bill / cash
memo. CW1 further clarified that the statement of account maintained by
accused firm in respect of our supplies was Ex. CW1/D and by mistake
same has been placed on the record and there was only small difference of
few thousands rupees in the account of accused firm maintained by him and
account of accused firm maintained by accused firm itself. CW1 further
negated the suggestion of the defence as to signature on the challans from
the employee of the accused firm was taken by wining over and no statutory
notice was issued in respect of dishonoring of said cheques in question or
the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that accused no. 2 had
admitted that he had signed and filled cheques in question for supply of
fabrics by the complainant and complainant had already filed challan with
signature of employee of accused firm regarding acknowledgement of
supply of fabrics. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also submits the
presumption of consideration in respect of cheques in question against the
accused arose u/s 139 of NI Act and the accused had not produced any
evidence in rebuttal of the same. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further
stated that complainant had filed challans Ex. CW1/8 to Ex. CW1/97,
returned debit memo Ex. CW1/C1 to Ex. CW1/C13, the ledger account of
accused firm maintained by the accused Ex. CW1/D and ITR of
complainant firm namely Kanika Fabrics Ex. CW1/E 7 Ex. CW1/F
disclosing liability of accused as Rs. 38,99,846.85/.
Page No. 4 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
5
5. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel submits that accused no. 3
Vikas Sachdeva was not summoned by then Ld. MM in present case vide
order dt. 25.05.2007 and same has not been challenged by the complainant.
Ld. Defence counsel also contended that cheques in question does not bear
any signature of Vikas Sachdeva nor had complainant had filed any proof
showing he was director in accused company or how he was associated
with alleged transaction in question. He also submits that the complainant
can not claim himself to be holder in due course of cheques in question as
he failed to prove on record that he was proprietor of M/s Kanika Fabrics.
Ld. Defence counsel contends that the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 is
not legally tenable because the same was sent to M/s Crest Export and not
to accused company namely M/s Crest Export Pvt. Ltd. and the
complainant also failed to prove service of such legal demand notice. He
also contends that on the bills produced by the complainant, the name of
buyer is Creast Export and not M/s Crest Export Pvt. Ltd. except 23
vouchers and the job order / purchase order Ex. CW1/E was given by Crest
and not by Crest Export Pvt. Ltd. and same is position in name of the firm
shown as sundry debtors in the ITR of the complainant. Ld. Defence
counsel stated that cheques in question are apparently stale cheques as they
are of the period prior to year to 2000 as they are carrying figure "19" on
every cheque which supports the claim of accused as to the cheques were
lying as security with the complainant, which were subsequently misused
by the complainant. He also argued that the cheque Ex. CW1/1 bearing No.
600884 is dt. 30.12.2006 whereas the cheque Ex. CW1/2 bearing
subsequent no. 600885 is dt. 26.12.2006. On this, he also submits that
cheque Ex. CW1/A suffers from material alteration on date which is enough
Page No. 5 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
6
to invalidate the instrument. Ld. Defence counsel would argue that first two
pages of ledger account Ex. CW1/B maintained by accused company shows
debit amount of Rs. 21,69,607.65/ whereas remaining papers shows credit
amount of Rs. 28,534.90/ and the ITR of complainant shows an
outstanding amount of Rs. 40,94,792.35/ whereas in affidavit the
complainant claimed outstanding amount just Rs. 38,88,998/. He would
further argue that there would be Rs. 46,66,799/ as outstanding amount if
complainant had supplied material of total sum of Rs. 63,76,799/ and a
sum of Rs. 17,10,000/ received from the accused as per complaint and
affidavit of complainant. Ld. Defence counsel also argued that as per ledger
Ex. CW1/D total sale amount is shown as Rs. 41,55,265.25/ and payments
received is shown as Rs. 19,85.757.60/ with outstanding amount as Rs.
21,69,607.65/ on first two pages whereas the remaining pages shows that
sale figure as Rs. 41,55,265.25/ and payments received is shown as Rs.
45,44,606.20/ resulting into over payment of Rs. 2,89,340/. Ld. Defence
counsel also stated that proper service of legal notice on accused company
(i.e. the drawer of cheques in question) was not proven by the complainant
as the notice was sent to M/s Crest Export and not to the drawer of cheques
i.e. M/s Crest Export Pvt. Ltd.
6. In T. Vasanthakumar vs. Vijayakumari (Crl. Appeal No. 728 of 2015),
the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land, while dealing with stale cheque and
presumptions u/s 139 of NI Act, observed as under:
"We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant as also the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent. The complainant has alleged that the money
(loan) was advanced to the defendant on 20052006 in Page No. 6 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
7relation to which the cheque was issued to him by the defendant on 1601 2007. The cheque was for Rs.5 lakhs only, bearing No.822408. It is of great significance that the cheque has not been disputed nor the signature of the defendant on it. There has been some controversy before us with respect to Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act as to whether complainant has to prove existence of a legally enforceable debt before the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act starts operating and burden shifts to the accused. Section 139 reads as follows:
"139. Presumption in favour of the holder It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." This Court has held in its three judge bench judgment in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441:
"The presumption mandated by Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. This is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the respondent complainant." Therefore, in the present case since the cheque as well as the signature has been accepted Page No. 7 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.8
by the accused respondent, the presumption under Section 139 would operate. Thus, the burden was on the accused to disprove the cheque or the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability. To this effect, the accused has come up with a story that the cheque was given to the complainant long back in 1999 as a security to a loan; the loan was repaid but the complainant did not return the security cheque. According to the accused, it was that very cheque used by the complainant to implicate the accused. However, it may be noted that the cheque was dishonoured because the payment was stopped and not for any other reason. This implies that the accused had knowledge of the cheque being presented to the bank, or else how would the accused have instructed her banker to stop the payment. Thus, the story brought out by the accused is unworthy of credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence".
7. Keeping in view of above mentioned settled legal proposition and peculiarity of hypertechnical offence u/s 138 of NI Act and legislative intent behind the same to curb the menace of dishonouring of cheques by unscrupulous drawer for smooth functioning of business activities, the court has to appreciate the material on the record. In instant case the accused no. 2 Vikas Sachdeva admits that cheques in question are of accused company, of which, he was director at relevant material time & cheques bear his signature and he himself had filled the body of cheques in question except date. In these situation, presumption of legally enforceable consideration in favour of complainant arose against accused in view of section 118 & 139 Page No. 8 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
9of NI Act. Now it is upto the accused to rebut said legal presumption either by leading reliable and cogent defence evidence or even by exposing material contradiction/infirmity in the case of complainant by way of cross examination of complainant. In present case accused preferred not to lead any defence evidence during trial.
8. So far as relation between complainant Shyam Sunder Aggarwal and the payee of cheque namely M/s Kanika Fabrics is concerned, the complainant has claimed in his legal demand notice and complaint as well as in his testimony that he was proprietor of the payee firm and also filed ITR Ex. CW1/E and Ex. CW1/F showing his address as Kanika Fabrics, X/3626, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also contended that in entire crossexamination of complainant, accused had not disputed as to he was proprietor of M/s Kanika Fabrics and hence oral argument of Ld. Defence counsel in that respect is not sustainable. Further, proprietorship firm is not distinct legal entity separate from its proprietor.
9. Another technical point raised by the defence as to legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5 addressed to M/s Crest Exports and not M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. should not be read against accused no. 1 & 2 and service of the same on accused persons had also not been proven by the complainant. Here, complainant had filed legal demand notice Ex. CW1/5, postal receipt Ex. CW1/6, UPC receipt Ex. CW1/7 regarding sending legal demand notice to the accused persons in respect of both dishonored cheques in question at C31, Sec59, Noida, U.P. Now, it is upto the accused to prove that there existed two separate entity namely M/s Crest Exports and M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. at same said given address because only in that Page No. 9 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
10situation, the legal notice could have been received by some person, other than the intended drawer/ noticee. However, accused did not lead any such evidence on the record of the case showing said fact nor had there been any suggestions in the crossexamination of complainant as to said given address was incorrect address of accused company. Moreover, reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in C. C. Alavi Haji Vs. P. Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555 and relevant para of the same is reproduced as under:
17. "It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint. Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint u/s 138 of NI Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons, therefore, complaint is liable to be rejected. Any person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G. C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation of the proviso would defeat the very Page No. 10 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
11object of the legislation. As observed in Bhaskarans case (supra), if the giving of notice in the context of Clause (b) of the proviso was the same as the receipt of notice a trickster cheque drawer would get the premium of avoid receiving the notice by adopting different strategies and escape from legal consequences of Section 138 of the Act."
X X
18. "In the instant case, the averment made in the complaint in this regard is: Though the complainant issued lawyers notice intimating the dishonour of cheque and demanded payment on 04.08.2001, the same was returned on 10.08.2001 saying that the accused was out of station. True, there was no averment to the effect that the notice was sent at the correct address of the drawer of the cheque by registered post acknowledgement due. But the returned envelope was annexed to the complaint and it thus, formed a part of the complaint which showed that the notice was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct address and was returned with an endorsement that the addressee was abroad. We are of the view that on facts in hand the requirements of Section 138 of the Act had been sufficiently complied with and the decision of the High Court does not call for interference".
In view of aforesaid observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, even the plea of nonservice of legal demand notice is also of no great legal importance for accused.
Page No. 11 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
1210. Similarly, Ld. Defence counsel also contended that the purchase order Ex. CW1/E was given by Crest and not by the drawer i.e. Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. and in the list of sundry debtor of ITR of complainant, the name of firm is Crest Exports and not Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. Here, there may be bonafide practice / habit on part of complainant to mention the name of buyer of his fabrics and drawer of cheques in question in short form like Creast or Crest or Crest Exports instead of full official name of accused organization i.e. M/s Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. In view of section 118/139 of NI Act, it was upto the accused to prove that he had not given cheques in question to the complainant or he had no dealing with the complainant or some other company in the name of Crest or Crest Export existed, which has been supplied with fabrics by the complainant. Mere, bald denial of supply of fabrics by the complainant or mere taking defence of security cheque in his statement u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr. P.C. can not be accepted as truthful and even same can not be read as part of evidence for rebuttal of presumption of U/s 139 of NI Act. Reference may be made in that respect to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in V.S. Yadav Vs. Reena 172 (2010) DLT 561. Here, legally speaking, accused / drawer will be held liable u/s 138 of NI Act even if, dishonored cheque was issued in discharge debt of liability of any third person as provision does not require that debt / liability must have been own by the drawer himself. It is also noticeable that accused did not explain satisfactorily as to why he had filled the name of payee i.e. the firm of the complainant on cheque in question if he had no transaction with the complainant or no fabrics was supplied by the complainant. Further, the complainant had acknowledged the previous huge payment of Rs. 17,10,000/ from the accused in his complaint which Page No. 12 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
13was not sought to be denied specifically by the accused.
11. In so far as defence plea of accused as to cheque in question being stale cheque lying with the complainant, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in T. Vasanthakumar (Supra) apply squarely to said challenge posed by the accused and same is reproduced as under:
"Further, the High Court relied heavily on the printed date on the cheque. However, we are of the view that by itself, in absence of any other evidence, cannot be conclusive of the fact that the cheque was issued in 1999. The date of the cheque was as such 20/05/2006. The accused in her evidence brought out nothing to prove the debt of 1999 nor disprove the loan taken in 2006.
In light of the above reasoning, we find that the learned High Court was misplaced in putting the burden of proof on the complainant. As per Section 139, the burden of proof had shifted on the accused which the accused failed to discharge. Thus, we find merit in this appeal".
12. Another plea of accused was that he had given security cheques in question to the complainant for supply of fabrics. However, even security cheque becomes enforcible once liability becomes due and quantifiable at the time of dishonoring of cheque even if it was not so at the time of handing over post dated or blank cheque to the complainant. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Suresh Chandra Vs. Amit Singhal Crl. L.P. No. 706/2014 dt. 14.05.2015 observed as under:
" 43. The Court also held that the expression, 'consideration' used in the Contract Act is a very wide term, Page No. 13 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.14
and it is not restricted to monetary benefit. Consideration does not necessarily mean money in return of money, or money in lieu of goods, or services. Any benefit or detriment of some value can be a consideration. The Court held that the complainant and the other owners of the property blocked their asset till the period of completion of the construction as per the collaboration agreement. The same was the consideration within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act. Thus, the reciprocal obligations of the builder, namely to create a security deposit was also a consideration for the contract. Consequently, the court dismissed the quashing petition.
44. In Sai Auto Agencies through its partner Dnyandeo Ramdas Rane v. Sheikh Yusuf Sheikh Umar, 2011 (1) Crimes 180, the defence of the respondent/accused was that, in relation to purchase of a tractor and equipments from the appellant, five blank cheques were given only as security. The respondent claimed that the complainant had already received the entire purchase consideration, and that the cheque in question was without consideration. The Court rejected the defence of the accused that the entire consideration stood paid to the appellant supplier. Relying upon Beena Shabeer (supra), the High Court observed:
"7. ... ... ... Necessarily, the cheque given as a security, if bounced, shall be the subjectmatter of a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. So, the contention of the Page No. 14 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.15
accused that cheque (exhibit 28) was given only as a security will not enable him to escape from the clutches of law".
(emphasis supplied)
45. The High Court further held as follows:
"9. Even if blank cheque has been given towards liability or even as security, when the liability is assessed and quantified, if the cheque is filled up and presented to the bank, the person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid the criminal liability arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act".
Thus, the myth that the dishonour of a cheque given as a security, cannot be the subject matter of a compliant under Section 138 NI Act was busted in this decision as well".
13. The complainant had filed various job order / purchase order Ex.
CW1/E placed by accused and various cash memo /challans Ex. CW1/8 to Ex. CW1/97 raised by complainant in respect of supply of material for Crest Exports situated at C31, Sec59, Noida, U.P. and also filed debit memos / challans Ex. CW1/C1 to Ex. CW1/13 with signature of employee of accused company on the challans in respect of part return of supply. Complainant also testified that the fabrics used to be supplied to the accused through three wheelers. Complainant also stated that statement of accounts Ex. CW1/D was maintained by the accused in respect of supplies made by him. Ld. Defence counsel in para 6 of written argument stated that the ledger Ex. CW1/D can not be looked into for want of certificate u/s Page No. 15 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
1665B of Indian Evidence Act. It is noticeable that during crossexamination of complainant, it was suggested by the accused that document Ex. CW1/D was fabricated. The complainant had also filed ITR Ex. CW1/E & Ex. CW1/F showing outstanding liability of Crest Export to the tune of Rs. 40,94,792.35/. In case of any minor discrepancy in the exact amount of outstanding liability in said documents it can be understood that they were prepared by different persons at different time. Moreover, the outstanding liability in any document exceeds the amount of both dishonored cheques of accused. Accused did not deny giving of cheques in question to the complainant in respect of supply of fabrics and rather he had filled the body of cheques in question including amount but without adding the date as appearing on cheque in question. Here, even undated cheques of accused could have been legitimately filled with date & presented for encashment (vide decision of Delhi High Court in Ravi Chopra Vs. State dt. 13.03.2008). Here, accused did not explain as to why he had filled the amount of Rs. 9,65,488/ in both cheques if no fabrics was supplied and it was allegedly mere security cheque for supplying fabrics of Rs. 38 lacs as claimed in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused did not lead any defence evidence for proving his claim as to no fabrics were supplied to the accused company or signatures of employee of accused company on challans were taken by wining over by the complainant. Accused opted such course of action during trial on his own peril as he was granted enough opportunity for leading defence evidence in the present case.
14. Having noted the relevant testimony of the examined witness and the material available on the record and also considering the rival submissions of both side, this court is of considered view that accused has failed to rebut Page No. 16 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.
17the legal presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability arose in favour of holder of cheque i.e. complainant of the case u/s 139 of NI Act. Accordingly, accused no. 1 Crest Exports Pvt. Ltd. And accused No. 2 Vikram Sachdeva are hereby convicted for the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act in the present complaint case. The said convict persons be heard on point of sentence separately. However, in view of unchallenged order of Ld. Predecessor dt. 25.05.2007 wherein accused no. 3 Vikas Sachdeva was not summoned for want of connecting evidence for his liability u/s 138 of NI Act, he is therefore, acquitted in the present case.
Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR
RAMPURI
KUMAR Location: Karkardooma
Courts, East District,
Delhi
RAMPURI Date: 2018.08.21
17:04:50 +0530
Announced in the open court (RAKESH KUMAR RAMPURI)
th
on 21 August, 2018. MM/KKD/Delhi
This judgment contains 17 signed pages.
Page No. 17 of 17 Shyam Sunder Aggarwal Vs. M/s Crest Exports & Ors.