Delhi District Court
Deepak Khattar vs M/S Asis Moulds (India) Pvt. Ltd on 30 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PERVEEN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : (CENTRAL DISTRICT):
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
CNR No.DLCT010111702019
Crl. Revision No. 512/2019
In the matter of :
1. Deepak Khattar, Director (Indian)
2. Sh. Ravi Khattar, Director ((Indian)
M/s Asis Mould (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Both S/o Late Sh. L. D. Khattar,
R/o B150, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi 63 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Asis Moulds (India) Pvt. Ltd.
2. Sh. Bum Jong Cho, Director (Korean)
3. Sh. Y. T. Park, Director (Korean)
M/s Asis Mould (India) Pvt. Ltd.
All at 33 Udyog Vihar, EcotechII,
Greater, Noida, UP.
4. Registrar of Companies,
NCT of Delhi and Haryana, 4th Floor,
IFCI Tower 61, Nehru Place,
New Delhi 19. .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.08.2019
Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 1
Date of Judgment : 30.03.2021
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed under Section 379/399 CrPC against order dated 12.07.2019 passed by Sh. Pawan Singh Rajawat, Ld. ACMM (Spl. Act), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case FIR No.525591/16 whereby application of the petitioner for summoning of witnesses has been partly allowed.
1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent no. 4 to the present petition, ROC has filed complaint under Section 162/220 (3) for violation of Sections 159/220 of the Companies Act against the respondent no. 1 company and its four Directors including the present petitioners for nonfiling of annual returns, balancesheet, profit and loss account in the prescribed form within the specified period for the financial year 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. That out of the four directors of the respondent no. 1 company, respondents no. 2 & 3 are the Korean Directors being Korean nationals and petitioners herein are the Indian Directors being Indian nationals. That upon the conclusion of evidence of respondent no. 4 ROC, the petitioners herein have been called upon to lead Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 evidence. That there are insterse disputes and differences between the Korean Directors and Indian Directors of the respondent no. 1 company, pending before other courts and tribunals. That during the relevant period i.e. 20082009 the Indian Directors have not participated in the day to day affairs of the company as they had been prohibited by the Korean Directors from entering into the premises of the company or to participate in any affairs of the company and were not having access to the operations and day to day affairs of the company - respondent no. 1 since 2007 and also were not being shown any records of the company and all the records of the company were and are available with the Korean Directors and with the company and in their possession or control. That the Korean Directors have been in complete control of the affairs of the company during the relevant period and even till date. That since 2007, all the documents are being filed by the Korean Director and are in their possession and control. That it has been claimed by Korean Directors in various Forums and Courts that the Company is being run by Korean Directors since the year 2007. That the company has changed its registered office, its place of keeping books of accounts for which relevant Forms have been filed by the Korean directors in Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 the ROC also, the bank accounts have also been changed and all this has been done without the consent of the Indian Directors. Moreover, Sh. Bum Jung Cho (Korean Director) has also been filing Sales Tax returns and Excise returns as well as balance sheet since 2007 onwards till date. That on 20.08.2015 the petitioners had filed an application for summoning of some witnesses on their behalf. That in the application filed in the Court on 20.08.2015 the petitioners wanted to summon the witness to prove the noninvolvement of the petitioner in the day to day working and affairs of the company during the period under complaint i.e. 20082009. That through application filed on 20.08.2015, the petitioner sought the permission to summon four employees / responsible officers of the company and two witnesses from the Sales Tax Department and from the Excise Department, which application was opposed by respondent no. 1 to 3. That respondent no. 4 complainant ROC did not raise any objection to the application of the petitioners for summoning of the witnesses by them. That vide order dated 12.07.2019 Ld. Trial Court has partly allowed and granted permission to summon only two witnesses and disallowed to summon the other four witnesses who are officers / employees of the company. That the ld. Court has failed to appreciate Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 that these witnesses are vital for the defence of the petitioners and are the only witnesses who can categorically clarify the rival contentions of the Korean and Indian Directors of the company / accused no. 1. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the witness no. 3A, Sh. M. K. Ji, was appointed as the General Manager of the accused company no. 1 w.e.f. 01.05.2007 by Sh. B.J.Cho/accused no. 2 Korean Director and malafidely his name was withheld from the knowledge of the ROC otherwise ROC would have made him a party to the complaint as accused being the General Manager of the Accused Company for as per Section 5 of the Companies Act 1956, the Manager is also included in the expression "officer who is in default" for the purpose of any provision in this Act. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that as per the law any person can be called as a witness in the case, unless he is incapable of giving the evidence and further, it is a matter between the party and the court to decide as to who may or can be called as a witness to prove the relevant facts before the court. That no other accused or party has got any right to object to the summoning of the witnesses, required for proving the facts before the Court. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that in case any of the witness wanted to seek or Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 claim any immunity in giving his statement in the Court, it is necessary for him to come to the witness stand and claim his immunity in giving his reply to the particular question asked to him and then only , the Hon'ble Court has the discretion to allow or order on his request. No other person or accused has got the right to claim immunity on his behalf or object for summoning of the witness, what so ever may be the reason. That Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that any self declaration or statement made by the parties at various Forums, are not going to prove, the facts beyond reasonable doubt, about the noninvolvement of the accused no. 4 and 5 in the affairs of the accused no. 1 company and it is only the true statement of the summoned witnesses, which will prove the true fact on record before the Hon'ble Court. That if the applicants are not allowed to summon the witness and prove their innocence in the matter, they will suffer innumerable loss and sufferings, as they have no other way to establish their noninvolvement and innocence in the affairs of the accused no. 1 company during the relevant period. That the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that in the statement of accused before the trial Court on 14.07.2015, the respondent no. 2 has stated that the record of the company had been clandestinely removed by the Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 petitioner in connivance with others, and therefore, it was beyond their control to file the records.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3 that there are disputes amongst petitioner and respondent no. 2 & 3. That petitioner no. 1 at the back of the respondent no. 1 to 3 and without any notice obtained an order dated 28.02.2011 from the SDM, Greater Noida, UP under Section 146 CrPC of sealing the company factory on a false and fraudulent complaint alleging breach of peace by suppressing the fact that the petitioner no. 1 had not been coming to the factory since 2007 and that desealing was diected when the orders were challenged in revision. That the petitioner filed the petition before the then Hon'ble Company Law Board (now "National Company Law Tribunal) in April 2011 against the Respondent No. 1 to 3 and others being Company petition no. 38/2011 by suppressing material facts and indulging in forum shopping which is still pending. The respondent no. 1 & 2 herein had initiated a complaint against Mr. Deepak Khattar and Mr. Ravi Khattar (petitioners) and others under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the court of the Ld. ACMM, Delhi under Section 156 (3) CrPC had directed the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi to register an FIR against the Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 petitioners and others and accordingly an FIR No. 26/2012 has been registered under section 463/464/465467/468/471/477/409/ 423/120B IPC against the petitioners and other for gross misappropriation, diversion of business, shareholding, removal of entire statutory records and books of accounts, etc. That the order impugned dated 12.07.2019 is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against the same. That under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 no revision lies against any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Ld. ACMM which is an interlocutory order. That oral evidence of the witnesses mentioned at SL No. 3A to 3D is not necessary and they are not required to be summoned as defence witnesses as the petitioners under the garb of leading defence evidence are attempting to implicate Respondent No. 1 to 3 for which relevant evidence has been led by the complainant. That the respondent no.1 Company sought permission from the Regional Director (RD), Ministry of External Affairs to remove the auditor of the company but RD has not granted permission for removal of the auditor and the order passed by the RD and entire record from the RD office was already on the Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 record of the Ld Trial Court. The said record proves the conduct of the petitioner. That the proceedings of the Company Law Board and of the Regional Director (NR) have already been filed by DW2 and DW3 in which the stand of all the accused persons is evident. That all relevant civil and criminal proceedings between the parties have also been brought on record. That the Petitioners had made admissions in suit No. 849/2010 and 21/2011 which made it crystal clear that they have intentionally and deliberately stopped coming to the factory of Respondent No.1, on their own, since April, 2007. The said admission of the Petitioners in the suits is binding upon them and as such they are liable for the consequences under the law. The Revisionists were no more Directors of the Respondent No.1 Company, as they have been removed as Directors of Respondent No 1 Company vide Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) dated 7.3.2011. That even in the Revision petition the Petitioners have alleged about the stand taken by the Respondent No.1 to 3 in various courts and/or forums, which further shows that no witness is required to be summoned. The Petitioners with a malafide intention have mentioned the witnesses at Sl No. 3A to 3D of the application The Petitioners are trying hard by adopting all the methods to somehow Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 gain access to the records of the Respondent No. 1 Company The application for summoning of witnesses at SI. No. 3A to 3D to produce record of the Respondent No.1 company is/was a modus operandi to summon the record through the Ld Trial Court, which relief has already been denied to the Petitioners by the Company Law Board vide order dated 21.5.2013 in the Company Petition 38/2011 as in the said Company Petition, the Petitioners moved an application for inspection of the records of the company, which was dismissed and has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. By seeking summoning of the said witnesses of the Respondent No 1 company, the Petitioners wants to summon those records which they are not otherwise entitled to see in terms of the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The act of the Petitioners to mention the name of the witnesses at SI No 3A to 3D of the application and to summon them through the Ld. Trial Court is nothing but a fishing and roving expedition and delaying exercise. That the Respondent No. 1 Company being accused who is represented by Respondent No 2 cannot be compelled to give evidence against itself. That as the Company/Respondent No.1 itself is an accused in the complaint case and as such there is bar of Article 20(3) of Constitution of India to Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 summon the said witnesses which were required to produce the record of the Company/Respondent No.1/accused No.1. The said direction/permission cannot be granted to the Petitioners as the same amounts to compelling the Respondent Nos. I to 3 to give evidence against themselves which is against the Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. That the Ld. Trial Court has examined all the material placed/available on record and only thereafter passed the order impugned and that the order passed is in accordance with law and as such not liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the scope of the provision of section 397 is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceedings. In the order dated 12.07.2019 neither there is patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity and the petitioners also have not alleged the same in their petition.
3. I have heard the Ld. Counsels and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. The present revision petition impunges order dated 12.07.2019 vide which an application of the petitioners arraigned as accused no. 4 & 5 to the complaint for summoning of witnesses in defence was allowed in part. The petitioner sought leave to summon Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 the following witnesses with record in order to prove the non involvement of the petitioners / accused in the day to day affairs of the accused company during the period 20082009 which portion is extracted from the application verbatim: "1. Sh. M. K. Ji, the Representative / General Manager of the Company M/s Asis Moulds India pvt. Ltd. 33 Udyog Vihar, EcotechII, Greater Noida, UP with the records of the company showing any dealing of the accused / Deepak and Ravi khattar with the affairs of the company during the period 20082009 and / or thereafter, including any payments made by the company to the accused persons or any record of any Board or other General Body meeting summoned or attended by the above named accused no. 4 & 5 any cheque issued or documents signed on behalf of the company by Sh. Deepak Khattar or signed Ravi Khattar showing their day to day involvements or dealings with the affairs of the company during the period 20082009 Besides other documents as detailed above he is requested to specifically produce before the Hon'ble Court the office copy of the following documents available with the company: a. Copy of the complaint dated 17.06.2008, filed by the company through Mr. B. J. Cho against the Mr. Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Deepak Khattar and others before the EOW alongwith its closure reported.
b. Copy of letter dated 21.04.2011 alongwith its enclosure addressed to the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida regarding opening of the business premises of the company, which letter is signed by Sh. B. J. Cho, Direcor Asis Mould India Pvt. Ltd.
B. Sh. M. M. Kumar, Representative / accountant of the Company M/s Asis Mould India Pvt. Ltd., 33 Udyog Vihar, EcotechII, Greater Noida UP during the period 2008 2009 dealing with the Excise and Sales tax Department, alongwith the Bank statements audit reports, balance sheets and the documents submitted to the Sales Tax Department and the Excise Department.
C. Sh. Harish Khurana, Company Secretary Membershp NO.3506 of the Company Asis Mould India Pvt. Ltd. AM2, Dilkhush Industrial Estate, G. T. Karnal Road, Delhi33 and also at 33 Udyog vihar, EcotechII, Greater Noida, UP alongwith the documents submitted to the ROC related to the Company details of all meetings alongwith the Minutes book of the company maintained by the company / him showing the names of the persons calling such meetings.
D. The security incharge / officer concerned of the company with the record Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 register of the incoming and outgoing of the personnel in the company premises, factory or it's Head Office and to reply if the accused persons had been entering / attending / visiting the premises during the period 2008 2009.
E. The dealing assistance / officer concerned from the office of the Sales Tax Department, from the office of the Dy.
Commissioner Trade Tax (Assessment ) 2, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida 201306 alongwith the record of the company's dealing and assessment orders and documents submitted by the company for assessment of trade with the department for the period 20082009 or thereafter with the Sale Tax / Excise department with the records of the persons signing such documents.
F. The dealing assistant / officer concerned from the office of the Excise Department i.e. office of the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, office at Formula1, Hotel Wegmans Business Park, Plot No. 3, K. P.III, Greater Noida (UP) 201308 alongwith the record of the company M/s Asis Moulds India Pvt. Ltd. Dealings with the departments for the period 20082009 or thereafter with the Sale Tax /Excise Department with the records of the person signing such documents."
Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 The application for summoning the witnesses for and on behalf of accused 4 & 5 the present petitioner was partly allowed and witnesses at Sl. No. 3(E) and 3(F) were permitted to be summoned in defence evidence on behalf of accused no. 4 & 5.
5. It is brought forth from a perusal of the record that the complaint under Section 162/220 (3) for violation of Section 159/220 of the Companies Act 1956 came to be instituted on 15.02.2011 by the Registrar of companies against M/s Asis Moulds India Pvt. Ltd., as accused no. 1 and its four Directors including the present petitioners arraigned as accused no. 4 & 5. The accused were summoned and Notice of accusation was served upon the petitioners alongwith the other coaccused on 20.12.2012. Before the Ld. Trial Court the Accused no. 1 Company is being represented through the accused no. 2 Director and the accused company in the statement under Section 313 CrPC raised the defence that the company and its Director were unable to hold the AGM because the records of the company i.e. Minutes Book, various accounting records etc. prior to May June 2007 were clandestinely removed by Deepak Khattar, Ravi Khattar in connivance with others. That letters were issued to Deepak Khattar, N. K. Sharma, accountant and Sandeep Sehgal, Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 Auditor, in the year 2007 for producing the records, returns etc of the company however, due to noncooperation of the statutory auditors, accountant, Ravi Khattar an Deepak Khattar, the meeting could not be held. That Deepak Khattar and Ravi Khattar have filed various court proceedings against the company and the Korean Directors. That one false and frivolous civil suit has been filed in Greater Noida Court, they have also filed a petition under Section 397/398 of Companies Act before the CLB, wherein a detailed reply has been given by the company and its Korean Directors which reply is relied upon in defence evidence. That Deepak Khattar has also initiated false proceedings under Section 145/146 CrPC in Greater Noida against the company and another. That Deepak Khattar and Ravit Khattar have never informed their DIN. That for the first time, the DIN of Deepak Khatar came to our knowledge only on 16.04.2015 when the official witness of ROC was being crossexamined. DIN of Ravi Khattar is still not known to him or the company. That in absence of requisite information regarding affairs of the company related to finance of the company and due to conduct of Deepak Khattar and Ravi Khattar, whose residential address was also the registered office address of the company till 05.03.2010, the returns Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 could not be filed. That Deepak Khattar and Ravi Khattar siphoned off the funds of the company to the tune of crores of rupees, manipulated the records and accounts of the company and have removed the records of the company and the records are still in their custody. That one FIR No. 26/2012 against Deepak Khattar and Ravi Khattar is being investigated by EOW. That Deepak Khattar was singly operating all the bank accounts of company since incorporation of the company till May June, 2007. That since inception of company, a systematic fraud has been played by Deepak Khattar and Ravi Khattar on company and its Korean Directors. That Deepak Khattar and Ravi Khattar are still having the records of the company prior to May - June 2007 in order to cause hindrance to the operation of the company and further to malign the reputation of the company and in order to initiate false prosecution by ROC against the Korean Directors.
6. Petitioners when examined under Section 313 CrPC, raised their respective defence along the lines that during the relevant period 200809 the Indian Directors i.e. the petitioners have not participated in the day to day affairs of the company as they had been Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 prohibited by the Korean Directors i.e. Mr. Bum Jung Cho and Mr. Y. T. Park from entering into the premises of the company and from participating in any of the affairs of the company, which facts had already been communicated to the office of ROC. That the company had appointed Mr. Bum Jung Cho and Mr. Y. T. Park as the authorized signatory of the aforesaid company and they were liable for the compliance of the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. That no remuneration has been received by the petitioners from the company since the bank accounts had been changed in the year 2007 onwards till date. That no AGM had been called by the company for the relevant period and also even till date no AGM has been called for discussion of the accounts by the Korean Directors who were in control of the company during the relevant period and even till date. No accounts have been shown to the Indian Directors for the relevant period and till date also. That a case has been filed in the CLB for oppression and mismanagement of the company and have specifically also requested to Korean Director for producing the entire account of the company but they have till date not shown any accounts to the petitioners despite specific application to this effect. That all the documents since 2007 are being filed by Mr. Bum Jung Cho with Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 various departments including the ROC also and it has been claimed in various forums and courts by Mr. Bum Jung Cho on behalf of the company that the company is being run by him since 2007 i.e. the company has changed its registered office, its place of keeping books of accounts. The bank accounts have been changed and are in control of the Korean Directors and all this has been done without the consent of the Indian Directors. That Mr. Bum Jung Cho has also been filing sale tax and excise returns since 2007 onwards. That an account has been opened in Shinhan Bank at Connaught Place in 2007 by Mr. Bum Jung Cho in which he is the signatory and all the property documents have been taken in his possession.
7. Whereas the company and its two Korean Directors maintained that the AGM could not be conducted for the year 2008 09 as the record prior to June 2007 was clandestinely removed by the Indian Directors, I.e. the present petitioners, the two Indian Directors would allege that they were not participating in the day to day affairs of accused no. 1 company during the relevant year as after 2007, the Indian Directors have not been associated with the affairs of the company and were not permitted to enter the premises of the accused company. Petitioner seeks to summon the employee and record of Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 the accused company in order to demonstrate that the petitioners were not Incharge of the day to day affairs of the companies during relevant year 20082009. The Korean Directors and the accused no. 1 company however it emerges from a perusal of their respective stands have not disputed that the petitioners have not associated themselves with the affairs of the company after June, 2007.
8. Witness at serial no.1 is sought to be summoned to produce any record of the company that would indicate that the petitioners were involved in any manner in the affairs of the company. It is pertinent that if it is the defence of the petitioners that the petitioners were shunted out / not associated with the day to day affairs of the company during the relevant year, it is also the categoric stand of the respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioners since June 2007 have not been participating in the affairs of the company albiet voluntarily. Under such circumstances as the respondents 1 to 3 have not alleged the involvement and participation of the petitioners in the affairs of the company during the relevant period., there arises no occasion for the Ld.Trial Court to summon any witness to produce the record to demonstrate if the petitioners had in any manner participated in the day to day affairs of the Accused Company during Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 the relevant period. The respective stands of the warring directors is premised upon the noninvolvement of the petitioners, the record of the company is therefore not required to appreciate the relative defence as to whether the nonparticipation was willful and voluntary or forced upon the petitioners.
9. Petitioners seek to summon M. K. Ji as representative / General Manager of accused no. 1 company M/s Asis Moulds India Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged that witness 3 (a) M. K. Ji was appointed as General Manager w.e.f. 01.05.2007 by accused no. 2 and his name has been withheld from the knowledge of the Registrar of Companies and that he is also liable being the General Manager. Petitioner, therefore, does not merely wish to examine General Manager of the accused no. 1 but also to implicate him. The witness cited at serial no.1 M.K.Ji, as per the own contentions of the petitioner before this court raised under the petition ought to have been arraigned as an accused in his capacity as the General Manager of the accused company having been appointed as such w.e.f.01.05.2007, i.e.during the relevant period. There is therefore force in the objection raised on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners seek to summon the record of the accused company in order to implicate the accused and Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 21 not merely to demonstrate its defense. It cannot be lost sight of that the Company is also an accused before the Ld.Trial Court. It would indubitably defeat the ends of justice if the accused company is compelled to produce record prejudicial to its defence and implicating its office bearers.
10. There is no ambiguity in the respective defences raised by the Indian Directors and the Korean Directors before the Ld. Trial Court. Admittedly, the two Indian Directors and the two Korean Directors have initiated multiple proceedings against each other criminal and civil and petitioners have also approached the Company Law Board. The settled stance is reflected in the pending litigation which is also sought to be relied upon by the two set of directors. So far as the Sales Tax Returns are concerned, the same is capable of being summoned from the respective authorities and to this extent the application of the petitioner already stands allowed.
11. Not only can the office bearers of the accused company be not compelled to depose and produce record, the record I.e.sought to be requisitioned is also not required for the appreciation of the defense raised by the petitioners as it has not been alleged by the Korean Directors and the accused company that the petitioners were Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 22 participating in the affairs of accused company.
12. There is therefore no such illegality or perversity in the summoning order as would warrant any interference. The revision petition stands dismissed accordingly.
13. Trial Court record be returned with copy of judgment. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open Court on this 30th March day of 2021 (Neelofer Abida Perveen) Addl. Sessions Judge : (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Deepak Khattar & Ors. v. M/s Asis Moulds (I) Pvt. Ltd. Page 23