Delhi District Court
Case No. 25/12 M/S Moongipa Capital ... vs . Puneet Sabharwal 1/22 on 28 February, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANU GOEL KHARB
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, DWARKA COURTS,
NEW DELHI
In Re: Case No. : 25/12
U/s. 138 Negotiable Instrument Act
1. CC No. : 25/12
2. Date of Institution : 29.04.2010
3. Name of the complainant, : M/s Moongipa
parentage and residence Capital Finance Ltd.
Having its Registered
Office at 18/14,W.E.A.
Pusa Lane, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005
Through its Manager/
AR Sh. Vimal Mehta
4. Name of accused : Mr. Puneet Sabharwal,
his parentage S/o Sh. B. K. Sabharwal
and residence H. No. Flat No. D72,
Shubham Enclave,
Paschim Vihar,
Delhi63.
5. Date when Judgment : 28.02.2013
was reserved
Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 1/22
2
6. Date when Judgment
was pronounced : 28.02.2013
7. Offence complained of : U/s. 138 NI Act
8. Plea of accused : Not guilty
9. Final Judgment : Convicted
:: JUDGMENT ::
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the complaint case U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (as amended upto date) filed by the complainant M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Limited through its authorised representative Sh. Vimal Mehta against the accused Mr. Puneet Sabharwal.
2. The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of the present case are that as per the allegations in the complaint, the accused had stood guarantor for a borrower namely Mr. Kunal Chopta in a loan agreement under which Mr. Kunal Chopta had taken a loan from the complainant company. On failure of Mr. Kunal Chopta to clear off his Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 2/22 3 outstanding liability to the complainant, the accused Mr. Puneet Sabharwal had issued a cheque bearing no. 628759 dated 26.02.2010 for a sum of Rs. 90,000/ drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch10, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, in favour of the complainant to clear the liability of Mr. Kunal Chopta towards the complainant as he was guarantor for Mr. Kunal Chopta. However, on presentation of the same it was dishonoured vide cheque returning memo dated 03.03.2010 with remarks "Account Blocked". The complainant has thereafter given a legal notice of demand dated 17.03.2010 to the accused which was sent to the accused on 17.03.2010 through UPC, Courier, registered A.D. and Speed Post thereby calling upon the accused to make the payment of the cheque amount. It is alleged that the accused has failed to pay any sum in response to the legal notice of demand as a result of which the complainant has filed the present complaint for prosecution of the accused U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act.
3. After the complaint was filed, the Authorized Representative (AR) of the complainant Sh. Vimal Mehta led his pre summoning evidence by way of an affidavit and after hearing the counsel for the complainant and considering the entire material and documents on record, summons were issued against the accused vide order dated 12.08.2010 for the offence U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 3/22 4 Act 1881. On appearance of the accused a separate notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. dated 29.07.2011 was given to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and the matter was fixed for complainant's evidence.
4. Sh. Vimal Mehta, Authorized Representative of the complainant got himself examined as CW1 and reiterated the contents of the complaint on oath before this court and filed an affidavit in evidence which is EX. CW1/A. He got exhibited memorandum and article of association of complainant as EX. CW1/1, Certificate of registration with Reserve Bank of India as EX. CW1/2, Copy of resolution of Board of Directors as EX. CW1/3 and SPA as EX. CW1/4, Copy of loan agreement dated 27.10.2008 as EX. CW1/5, Copy of statement of account as on 12.02.2010 as EX.CW1/6 and CW1/6A. He also exhibited original cheque dated 26.02.2010 before the court as EX. CW1/7 and the cheque returning memo dated 03.03.2010 as EX. CW1/8A. The legal notice of demand dated 17.03.2010 is exhibited as EX. CW1/9 and postal receipts of registered AD vide which the aforesaid legal notice was sent as EX. CW1/10, Postal receipt of speed post dated 17.03.2010 as EX. CW1/11 and receipt of U.P.C dated 17.03.2010 as EX. CW1/12, receipt of DTDC Courier as EX. CW1/13 Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 4/22 5 and internet generated report of DTDC Courier as EX. CW1/14. Thereafter, Sh. Vimal Mehta was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. Complainant has also examined Sh. Majid Wani as CW2. CW2 got exhibited the statement of account of Moongipa Capital Finance Limited from 01.10.2008 to 11.11.2008 as EX.CW2/A, cheque dishonour memo regarding the cheque no. 628759 as EX. CW2/B and the statement of account of Moongipa Capital Finance Limited from 16.02.2010 to 10.03.2010 as EX.CW2/C. Thereafter, CW2 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused after which the complaint evidence was closed vide separate statement of AR.
5. After that the statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminating evidence along with exhibited documents were put to the accused Mr. Puneet Sabharwal in which he admitted his signatures on the cheque EX. CW1/7 but further stated that rest of particulars regarding the name of payee, amount and date were not filled in by him or in his presence. He further stated that he does not have any knowledge regarding the dishonour of cheque and he had never received any legal demand notice regarding the same. He admitted in his statement that he stood as a guarantor for Mr. Kunal Chopra who had taken loan from complainant company. He stated that he had given the cheque in question to Mr. Kunal Chopra and not to the complainant Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 5/22 6 company.
6. After this the matter was fixed for Defence evidence. Sh. Dinesh Chandra Gupta, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, was examined as DW1 who exhibited the statement of account of bank account no. 0604000101423366 from 01.03.2008 till 01.03.2010 as EX. DW.1/A and the official letter regarding the issuance of cheque book containing cheque leave no. 628759 on 24.10.2007 as EX. DW.1/B. Thereafter, Ld. counsel for the accused moved an application U/s 315 Cr. P.C for producing the accused as a defence witness. The aforesaid application was allowed and the accused deposed as DW2. He admitted his signature on cheque EX. CW.1/7 but he deposd that the complainant never made any payment to him. He had given the cheque in question to Kunal Chopra as Kunal Chopra had taken some money from some company and promised to return the cheque after the loan was repaid to the company. He further denied having received the legal notice. Then the accused was duly crossexamined by Ld. counsel for the complainant. Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 05.05.2012 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. Final Arguments were addressed on behalf of both the Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 6/22 7 parties.
I have heard Ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the entire record of the case file and the evidence on record. In order to bring home the conviction of the accused, the complainant has to show not only unbroken chain of events leading to commission of actual offence on record but also the ingredients of the offence complained of.
8. Before proceeding further let us go through the relevant provisions of law. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that: Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc, of funds in the account: Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in while or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 7/22 8 period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability"
means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
8. Before going into the question whether the complainant has proved all the necessary ingredients of the offence U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the accused or not, the Court needs to first decide the objections raised by Ld. counsel for accused during the stage of evidence regarding the admissibility of Ex.CW1/3, Ex.CW1/5, Ex.CW1/6A and Ex.CW1/8A (objected as to the mode of proof).
Ex. CW1/3 is the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the complainant company in favor of Sh. Vimal Mehta authorising him to look after and file/institute legal matter, criminal complaint on behalf of the company. As CW1/3 is filed in original and duly signed by the director of the bank, there is no doubt about the mode Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 8/22 9 of proof and the document Ex. CW1/3 is duly proved.
Further CW1/5 is the photocopy of the loan agreement. At later stage Complainant brought the original Loan agreement and same was seen and returned by the court. Hence, the loan agreement Ex. CW1/5(OSR) also stands duly proved.
Ex.CW1/6A is the computer generated statement of account of the accused and the same was objected as to the mode of proof. Persual of the file shows that complainant had filed the certificate under Sec. 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding Ex. CW1/6A on 12.12.2011. Therefore, the same has also been duly proved.
Lastly, Ex. CW1/8A is the cheque dishonour memo issued by The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Same is filed in original and duly signed and stamped by the manager of the bank. So there is no doubt about the mode of proof and the document Ex. CW1/8A is duly proved.
9. Now let us deal with the each ingredient of the section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to see whether the case against the accused has been proved or not.
Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 9/22 10
10. WHETHER THE CHEQUE WAS ISSUED OR NOT?
The accused has himself admitted to have signed the cheque in question while answering to the question at the time of framing of notice U/s 251 Cr. PC and that he had issued the cheque in question for the purpose of guarantee. Further during the statement of accused under section 313 CrPC and also while appearing as DW1, accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question.
In view of the evidence on record it stands proved that the cheque in question was issued by the accused.
11. WHETHER THE CHEQUE WAS PRESENTED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY?
Perusal of the record reveals that the cheque in question which is Exhibit CW1/7 is dated 26.02.2010 which got dishonoured vide cheque returning memo which is Exhibit CW1/8A dated 03.03.2010 which is not disputed by the accused clearly shows that the cheque has been presented within period of its validity i.e. within six months from the date of issuance of the cheque.
12. DISHONOUR OF CHEQUE IN QUESTION Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 10/22 11 In the instant case, Sh. Vimal Mehta, who has appeared as complainant's witness has got exhibited the cheque returning memo which is CW1/8A. The dishonor of the cheque in question has not been disputed by the accused. But the accused had objected to the cheque returning memo Ex. CW1/8A as to its mode of proof. As already discussed above, Ex. CW1/8A is the cheque dishonour memo issued by The Jammu & Kashmir Bank which is filed by the complainant in original and is duly signed and stamped by the manager of the bank. So there is no doubt about the mode of proof and the document Ex. CW1/8A is duly proved.
Therefore, considering the entire evidence on record, it stands duly proved that the cheque in question was dishonored vide cheque returning memo Ex.CW1/8A dated 03.03.2010 with the reason "Account Blocked."
13. SERVICE OF LEGAL NOTICE OF DEMAND UPON THE ACCUSED In the instant case, Sh. Vimal Mehta, who appeared as complainant's witness has specifically stated in his examination in chief that the complainant issued the legal notice of demand dated 17.03.2010 Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 11/22 12 which is EX. CW1/9 and it was sent to the accused on 17.03.2010, through UPC and courier, registered A.D. and Speed Post thereby calling upon the accused to make the payment of the cheque amount. The postal receipts of registered AD vide which the aforesaid legal notice was sent is EX. CW1/10, Postal receipt of speed post dated 17.03.2010 is EX. CW1/11 and receipt of U.P.C dated 17.03.2010 is EX. CW1/12, receipt of DTDC Courier is EX. CW1/13 and internet generated report of DTDC Courier is EX. CW1/14. However, the accused has denied the receipt of legal notice of demand in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC.
I have perused the legal notice of demand. Accused in his crossexamination as DW1 has admitted that Legal Notice bears his correct address. Same address is mentioned on the complaint and even summons of the court were issued at the same address. The summons were served at the aforesaid address and the accused has put in appearance in compliance thereof. Moreover, the address furnished by the accused himself on the bail bond and while deposing as DW1 is the same address which is mentioned on the legal notice of demand sent to the accused.
"There is presumption U/s 27 of General Clauses Act in favour of the complainant that properly addressed Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 12/22 13 documents sent by the registered post is deemed to have been delivered if not returned back."
Further, in "C.C. Alavi Hazi Vs. Palapetty Mohd. & Anr." reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court case 555, it was held that the course open to the drawer where he claims not to have received the notice sent by post but has received copy of the complaint with the summons is that he can within a 15 days of the receipt of summons make payment of the cheque amount and he then cannot contend that there was no proper service of notice.
Considering the evidence on record and mandate given in above mentioned judgment, I am of the considered opinion that the legal notice of demand was served upon the accused.
14. WHETHER THE CHEQUE IN QUESTION WAS ISSUED IN DISCHARGE OF ANY LEGAL DEBT OR OTHER LIABILITY?
In the case in hand Authorized Representative (hereinafter referred to as AR) of the complainant has stated in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that the cheque in question was issued by the accused on 26.02.2010 in discharge of the legal liability of the borrower Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 13/22 14 Mr. Kunal Chopra .
Accused has stated during the framing of notice under section 251 Cr.PC that he had delivered the cheque in question to the complainant by way of guarantee but in his testimony as DW1 he has stated that he had given the cheque to his friend Kunal Chopra and not to the complainant. He further submitted that Kunal Chopra had taken some money from some company and promised to return the cheque to the accused after the loan was repaid to the company.
Before deciding this issue let us go through the relevant provisions of law.
Section 46 of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks of the delivery, it reads as follows: "The making, acceptance or endorsement of a promisory notice, bill of exchange or cheque is completed by delivery, actual or constructive."
Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that until the contrary is proved, the following presumption shall be made:
(a) As to consideration that every negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration and every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.
(b) As to date that every Negotiable Instrument bearing a a date was made or drawn on such date.
Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 14/22 15
(g) that holder is a holder in due course that the holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course.
Further Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred in the Section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of his debt or liability.
Now it will have to be examined whether the accused has rebutted the presumption as contemplated by Section 118 (b), 118(g) and Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
In this case the accused has stated in his examination in chief as DW2 that he had given the cheque in question to Kunal Chopra in the year 2008.
To rebut the presumption of Section 118 (b) and to prove that cheque in question was not issued on date mentioned on the cheque, accused has relied upon two documents which are exhibited as Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B. Ex. DW1/A is the statement of account for bank account no. 0604000101423366 from 01.03.2008 till 01.03.2010 and EX. DW.1/B is the letter issued by the official of Punjab National Bank, West Patel Nagar Branch, New Delhi confirming that the cheque book containing the cheque in question leave no. 628759 was issued on 24.10.2007. Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 15/22 16 Further it is specified in the letter Ex. DW1/B that there has been no operation from the bank account no. 0604000101423377 after 30.06.2009 and the balance is zero till date.
With the help of these two documentary evidence, the accused has tried to prove that the cheque book was issued to him in the year 2007 and there has been no operation in the bank acccount no. 0604000101423377 after 30.06.2009 and the same has a zero balance till date whereas the cheque in question bears the date 26.02.2010 which is much later than the date when he had stopped operating the account.
The Court finds no force in the above contention of the accused as there is no rule of banking business that cheque book should be used by the customer within some specified time of its being issued by the bank. Rather, it can be used anytime. Moreover, both the documents are not of much relevance as both are silent with respect to the issuance or nonissuance of the cheque in question by the accused.
One of the rules of banking business is that an account will remain operative as "Dormant Account" in the name of account holder even if no balance is maintained in it and account holder is not operating it. A bank will only close an account only after receiving written request in this behalf by the account holder. Accused has failed to produce any credible evidence to show that he had made such a request and his account was closed as a result of it. So, the account was still operative in the name of the accused.
Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 16/22 17 Moreover, it has never been the case of the accused that he did not issue the cheque in question. Accused himself has admitted at various stages of trial i.e. Notice U/s 251 Cr.PC, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.PC r/w Sec. 281 Cr.PC and Examination in chief of accused as DW2 that cheque in question was only signed by him and it was issued as blank signed cheque.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the documentary evidence Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B produced by accused failed to prove that cheque in question Ex.CW1/7 was not issued by the accused and it is sufficiently proved on record that the cheque in question was issued by the accused In M/s Jammu & Kashmir Bank vs. Abhishek Mittal, 2012 CD DCR 189, Delhi Hight Court has held that : "When a blank cheque is signed and handed over, it means that the person signing it has given the implied authority to the holder of the cheque, to fill up the blanks which he has left. A person issuing a blank cheque is supposed to understand the consequences of doing so. He cannot escape his liability only on the ground that blank cheque has been issued by him."
"Once issuance of the cheques been admitted or stands proved, a presumption arises in favour of the holder of the cheque that he had received the cheque of the nature referred to under Section 138 of Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 17/22 18 the Act for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability. This presumption arises in favour of the holder under Section 139 of the Act which envisages that it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to under Section 138 of the Act for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability. Of course, this presumption is a rebuttable presumption and same can be rebutted only by the person who had drawn the cheque."
Accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 118 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, presumption under section 118 (b) holds good and according to which cheque was issued by the accused.
To rebut the presumption under section 118(g) of Negotiable Instrument Act, the accused has taken the defence that the cheque in question was not issued by him to the complainant but to Kunal Chopra as Kunal Chopra had taken some money from some company and promised to return the cheque after the loan was repaid to the company. Accused admited in his crossexamination that as Kunal Chopra was his friend for last 78 years, therefore, he did not take any reciept from him. Persual of Cheque in question Ex CW1/7 shows that the name of the Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 18/22 19 payee is clearly mentioned as that of the Complainant and not that of Kunal Chopra. If cheque was isssued to Kunal chopra then how come it came into the possession of complainant? To prove his version, the accused could have examined his friend Kunal Chopra i.e. Borrower in his defence, but he failed to do that. Accused failed to bring anything on the record to substantiate his contention. Further, in normal course of business, nobody issues a blank signed cheque to anyone, not even a friend.
Thus, the accused has even failed to rebut the presumption under section 118(g) of NI Act and the presumption holds good that the complainant was a holder in due course.
Now, Court has to see that whether at the time when cheque in question Ex.CW1/7 was issued i.e. on 26.02.2010, the accused had any legal debt or other liability due towards the complainant.
Perusal of case file shows that it is stated by the accused in his examination in chief that he signed the document Ex. CW1/5 but the same was blank and nothing was written on it and that his friend Kunal Chopra had taken his signatures on blank papers. Later on in his cross examination, he has admitted that loan agreement Ex. CW1/5 was typed when he had signed on the same but nothing was written in hand on the same. But again he didnot bring any document or evidence on record in support of his version. Therefore, he has failed to discharge his onus and mere averments by the accused without placing on record any cogent Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 19/22 20 proof is not sufficient as it is generally presumed that a person signs a document only after reading its contents.
Thus, court is satisfied that the loan agreement Ex. CW1/5 bears the signatures of the accused and has been signed by the accused in his capacity as a guarantor for the borrower Mr. Kunal Chopra.
Section 138 of NI Act explicitly provides that the cheque should have been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. Again Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that 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.
The word "other liability" as mentioned in Sec 138 NI Act means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.
Section 128 of Indian Contract Act provides that the liability of the surety is coextensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided in the contract.
Therefore, as per the Indian Contract Act, the liability of the guarantor is coextensive with that of the borrower which means that lender can enforce his right against either the principal borrower or the Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 20/22 21 guarantor of principal borrower.
On a joint reading of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 128 of Indian Contract act and the loan agreement Ex. CW1/5 , it is now crystal clear that the liability of the guarantor of a loan falls within the term other liability as required under the provisions of section 138 NI Act. As such guarantor of the loan Puneet Sabharwal was equally responsible for the repayment of the loan. A reading of loan agreement CW1/5 nowhere mentions that the complainant shall enforce the loan liability against the borrower only and not the guarantors. Thus, the complainant has rightly enforced its remedy against the accused in his capacity of being the guarantor of the loan.
Thus, from the above discussion, it is quite clear that the accused had isssued the cheque in favor of the complainant for legally enforceable liability.
15. THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE HAS FAILED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF SAID NOTICE In the instant case Vimal Mehta who has appeared as Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 21/22 22 complainant's witness has deposed in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that despite service of legal notice of demand accused has failed to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of legal notice of demand.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has successfully proved its case against the accused. Accordingly, accused Mr. Puneet Sabharwal S/o Sh. B. K. Sabharwal is hereby convicted of the offence u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
Announced in open court Manu Goel Kharb
on 28th of February, 2013 Metropolitan Magistrate (Municipal)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi /28.02.2013
Case no. 25/12 M/s Moongipa Capital Finance Ltd vs. Puneet Sabharwal 22/22