Delhi District Court
M/S D.R.K. Engineers (P) Ltd. vs . V. Singh & Ors. on 28 April, 2012
M/s D.R.K. Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. V. Singh & Ors. C.C.No.4587/10 28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. Mahender Mittal, AR of the complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement. I have received the settled amount from the accused as per settlement order dated 24.02.2012. I have no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused.
I have brought with me PAN Identity Card marked as Mark-C (OSR).
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Kailash and company Vs. V.K. Gupta
C.C.No.1337/10
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. K.C. Sharma, AR of the complainant company.
On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement. I have no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused.
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
Ms. Rajwant Kaur Vs. Sukhdev Singh @ Sachdev Singh
C.C.No.5998/11
28.04.2012
Statement of Ms. Rajwant Kaur, Complainant.
On S.A.
I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my evidence.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Kailash and company Vs. V.K. Gupta
C.C.No.1318/10
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. K.C. Sharma, AR of the complainant company.
On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement. I have no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused.
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
Arjun Kohli Vs. C.S. Verma
C.C.No.6105/11
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. Sanjay Khanna, SPA of the complainant.
On S.A.
I, the above named SPA of the complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused.
I have brought with me PAN Identity Card marked as Mark-C (OSR).
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 Surinder Patwa Vs. M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.803/1028.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Surinder Patwa (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that the accused company was the manufacturer/trader of socks. I do not know whether the value of each pair of socks sold by the accused company was less than Rs.100/-. I cannot say that whether as per the law applicable, the accused company was exempted from registration with the Sales Tax Department. In the year 2003-2004, the accused Shitij Kumar had handed over copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate of the accused company bearing No.LC/72/099918/0802. It is correct that as per my complaint the accused had represented that since they were registered with the Sales Tax Department, therefore, it was agreed that all the sales would be made against supply of ST-I Statutory Forms against all sales. The sales made during the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 were against the supply of ST-I forms as well as without ST-I Forms.
The accused company used to always promise to supply ST-I forms against all sales made by me to the accused company as per practice between the complainant and the accused company. The accused company is a registered dealer. The accused company was to be treated as a registered dealer for all the transactions entered into/for all sales made by me to the accused company for the financial years-2003-2004 and 2004-2005. It is correct that in many invoices as annexed by me alongwith the complaint, I have charged the accused company, Sales Tax @ 4% in the said invoices. The complainant was shown Exh.CW1/65 dated 30.04.2004 and he stated that the said sale was against ST-I form and no sales tax was charged on the said sale from the accused company. I cannot say whether there is any endorsement in respect of supply of ST-I form or the charge of sales tax. (Vol. The sale shown under Exh.CW1/65 is against ST-I form). I do not remember whether all the sales made on 30.04.2004 were against the supply of ST-I forms. It is correct that as per the invoice Exh.CW1/66 dated 30.04.2004, I have charged sales tax @ 4% in the said invoice. It is wrong to suggest that the sales tax used to be charged separately or was included in the price of the goods. (Vol. Sales Tax was always shown separately). Invoice Exh.CW1/65 is not in my handwriting. I cannot say that the bills relied upon me whether are in my handwriting or not. Again said Exh.CW1/8, Exh.CW1/10, Exh.CW1/11, Exh.CW1/12, Exh.CW1/24, Exh.CW1/26, Exh.CW1/31, Exh.CW1/53, Exh.CW1/57, Exh.CW1/64 are all written in my handwriting except the signatures of the receipt. (Vol. The remaining invoices were filled in by my employee Tarun who is now expired). The invoices used to be raised after the goods were loaded in the truck/tampoo. It is wrong to suggest that the printed portion in my invoices 'Slip No. and GR No.' are the spaces to be filled with the Delivery Challan Number issued by the complainant and the Gate Receipt Number. Again said that the said spaces were in fact to be filled with Delivery Challan Number and Gate Receipt number.
I cannot say that of the total 73 invoices annexed by me alongwith the complaint, 60 of the said invoices (relating to 2003-2004) stand duly paid and also one invoice Exh.CW1/66 has been paid in cash by the accused. I cannot say whether the total amount of the remaining 12 invoices (2004-2005) is approximately Rs.52 lacs or not. (Vol. There are few invoices that have been annexed by me in the FIR instituted by me against the same accused).
I do not remember as to how much payment from the accused in the financial year 2004-2005 was duly credited in my bank account. It is wrong to suggest that the said payment was more than Rs.1 crore. (Vol. I can tell the exact amount after going through the account statement). It is correct that one of my account of the complainant concern is at Punjab National Bank. I cannot say whether I have any bank statement for the said account for the period 2004-2005.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 Surinder Patwa Vs. M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.808/1028.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Surinder Patwa (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that the accused company was the manufacturer/trader of socks. I do not know whether the value of each pair of socks sold by the accused company was less than Rs.100/-. I cannot say that whether as per the law applicable, the accused company was exempted from registration with the Sales Tax Department. In the year 2003-2004, the accused Shitij Kumar had handed over copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate of the accused company bearing No.LC/72/099918/0802. It is correct that as per my complaint the accused had represented that since they were registered with the Sales Tax Department, therefore, it was agreed that all the sales would be made against supply of ST-I Statutory Forms against all sales. The sales made during the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 were against the supply of ST-I forms as well as without ST-I Forms.
The accused company used to always promise to supply ST-I forms against all sales made by me to the accused company as per practice between the complainant and the accused company. The accused company is a registered dealer. The accused company was to be treated as a registered dealer for all the transactions entered into/for all sales made by me to the accused company for the financial years-2003-2004 and 2004-2005. It is correct that in many invoices as annexed by me alongwith the complaint, I have charged the accused company, Sales Tax @ 4% in the said invoices. The complainant was shown Exh.CW1/65 dated 30.04.2004 and he stated that the said sale was against ST-I form and no sales tax was charged on the said sale from the accused company. I cannot say whether there is any endorsement in respect of supply of ST-I form or the charge of sales tax. (Vol. The sale shown under Exh.CW1/65 is against ST-I form). I do not remember whether all the sales made on 30.04.2004 were against the supply of ST-I forms. It is correct that as per the invoice Exh.CW1/66 dated 30.04.2004, I have charged sales tax @ 4% in the said invoice. It is wrong to suggest that the sales tax used to be charged separately or was included in the price of the goods. (Vol. Sales Tax was always shown separately). Invoice Exh.CW1/65 is not in my handwriting. I cannot say that the bills relied upon me whether are in my handwriting or not. Again said Exh.CW1/8, Exh.CW1/10, Exh.CW1/11, Exh.CW1/12, Exh.CW1/24, Exh.CW1/26, Exh.CW1/31, Exh.CW1/53, Exh.CW1/57, Exh.CW1/64 are all written in my handwriting except the signatures of the receipt. (Vol. The remaining invoices were filled in by my employee Tarun who is now expired). The invoices used to be raised after the goods were loaded in the truck/tampoo. It is wrong to suggest that the printed portion in my invoices 'Slip No. and GR No.' are the spaces to be filled with the Delivery Challan Number issued by the complainant and the Gate Receipt Number. Again said that the said spaces were in fact to be filled with Delivery Challan Number and Gate Receipt number.
I cannot say that of the total 73 invoices annexed by me alongwith the complaint, 60 of the said invoices (relating to 2003-2004) stand duly paid and also one invoice Exh.CW1/66 has been paid in cash by the accused. I cannot say whether the total amount of the remaining 12 invoices (2004-2005) is approximately Rs.52 lacs or not. (Vol. There are few invoices that have been annexed by me in the FIR instituted by me against the same accused).
I do not remember as to how much payment from the accused in the financial year 2004-2005 was duly credited in my bank account. It is wrong to suggest that the said payment was more than Rs.1 crore. (Vol. I can tell the exact amount after going through the account statement). It is correct that one of my account of the complainant concern is at Punjab National Bank. I cannot say whether I have any bank statement for the said account for the period 2004-2005.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 Surinder Patwa Vs. M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.806/1028.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Surinder Patwa (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that the accused company was the manufacturer/trader of socks. I do not know whether the value of each pair of socks sold by the accused company was less than Rs.100/-. I cannot say that whether as per the law applicable, the accused company was exempted from registration with the Sales Tax Department. In the year 2003-2004, the accused Shitij Kumar had handed over copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate of the accused company bearing No.LC/72/099918/0802. It is correct that as per my complaint the accused had represented that since they were registered with the Sales Tax Department, therefore, it was agreed that all the sales would be made against supply of ST-I Statutory Forms against all sales. The sales made during the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 were against the supply of ST-I forms as well as without ST-I Forms.
The accused company used to always promise to supply ST-I forms against all sales made by me to the accused company as per practice between the complainant and the accused company. The accused company is a registered dealer. The accused company was to be treated as a registered dealer for all the transactions entered into/for all sales made by me to the accused company for the financial years-2003-2004 and 2004-2005. It is correct that in many invoices as annexed by me alongwith the complaint, I have charged the accused company, Sales Tax @ 4% in the said invoices. The complainant was shown Exh.CW1/65 dated 30.04.2004 and he stated that the said sale was against ST-I form and no sales tax was charged on the said sale from the accused company. I cannot say whether there is any endorsement in respect of supply of ST-I form or the charge of sales tax. (Vol. The sale shown under Exh.CW1/65 is against ST-I form). I do not remember whether all the sales made on 30.04.2004 were against the supply of ST-I forms. It is correct that as per the invoice Exh.CW1/66 dated 30.04.2004, I have charged sales tax @ 4% in the said invoice. It is wrong to suggest that the sales tax used to be charged separately or was included in the price of the goods. (Vol. Sales Tax was always shown separately). Invoice Exh.CW1/65 is not in my handwriting. I cannot say that the bills relied upon me whether are in my handwriting or not. Again said Exh.CW1/8, Exh.CW1/10, Exh.CW1/11, Exh.CW1/12, Exh.CW1/24, Exh.CW1/26, Exh.CW1/31, Exh.CW1/53, Exh.CW1/57, Exh.CW1/64 are all written in my handwriting except the signatures of the receipt. (Vol. The remaining invoices were filled in by my employee Tarun who is now expired). The invoices used to be raised after the goods were loaded in the truck/tampoo. It is wrong to suggest that the printed portion in my invoices 'Slip No. and GR No.' are the spaces to be filled with the Delivery Challan Number issued by the complainant and the Gate Receipt Number. Again said that the said spaces were in fact to be filled with Delivery Challan Number and Gate Receipt number.
I cannot say that of the total 73 invoices annexed by me alongwith the complaint, 60 of the said invoices (relating to 2003-2004) stand duly paid and also one invoice Exh.CW1/66 has been paid in cash by the accused. I cannot say whether the total amount of the remaining 12 invoices (2004-2005) is approximately Rs.52 lacs or not. (Vol. There are few invoices that have been annexed by me in the FIR instituted by me against the same accused).
I do not remember as to how much payment from the accused in the financial year 2004-2005 was duly credited in my bank account. It is wrong to suggest that the said payment was more than Rs.1 crore. (Vol. I can tell the exact amount after going through the account statement). It is correct that one of my account of the complainant concern is at Punjab National Bank. I cannot say whether I have any bank statement for the said account for the period 2004-2005.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 Surinder Patwa Vs. M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.805/1028.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Surinder Patwa (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that the accused company was the manufacturer/trader of socks. I do not know whether the value of each pair of socks sold by the accused company was less than Rs.100/-. I cannot say that whether as per the law applicable, the accused company was exempted from registration with the Sales Tax Department. In the year 2003-2004, the accused Shitij Kumar had handed over copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate of the accused company bearing No.LC/72/099918/0802. It is correct that as per my complaint the accused had represented that since they were registered with the Sales Tax Department, therefore, it was agreed that all the sales would be made against supply of ST-I Statutory Forms against all sales. The sales made during the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 were against the supply of ST-I forms as well as without ST-I Forms.
The accused company used to always promise to supply ST-I forms against all sales made by me to the accused company as per practice between the complainant and the accused company. The accused company is a registered dealer. The accused company was to be treated as a registered dealer for all the transactions entered into/for all sales made by me to the accused company for the financial years-2003-2004 and 2004-2005. It is correct that in many invoices as annexed by me alongwith the complaint, I have charged the accused company, Sales Tax @ 4% in the said invoices. The complainant was shown Exh.CW1/65 dated 30.04.2004 and he stated that the said sale was against ST-I form and no sales tax was charged on the said sale from the accused company. I cannot say whether there is any endorsement in respect of supply of ST-I form or the charge of sales tax. (Vol. The sale shown under Exh.CW1/65 is against ST-I form). I do not remember whether all the sales made on 30.04.2004 were against the supply of ST-I forms. It is correct that as per the invoice Exh.CW1/66 dated 30.04.2004, I have charged sales tax @ 4% in the said invoice. It is wrong to suggest that the sales tax used to be charged separately or was included in the price of the goods. (Vol. Sales Tax was always shown separately). Invoice Exh.CW1/65 is not in my handwriting. I cannot say that the bills relied upon me whether are in my handwriting or not. Again said Exh.CW1/8, Exh.CW1/10, Exh.CW1/11, Exh.CW1/12, Exh.CW1/24, Exh.CW1/26, Exh.CW1/31, Exh.CW1/53, Exh.CW1/57, Exh.CW1/64 are all written in my handwriting except the signatures of the receipt. (Vol. The remaining invoices were filled in by my employee Tarun who is now expired). The invoices used to be raised after the goods were loaded in the truck/tampoo. It is wrong to suggest that the printed portion in my invoices 'Slip No. and GR No.' are the spaces to be filled with the Delivery Challan Number issued by the complainant and the Gate Receipt Number. Again said that the said spaces were in fact to be filled with Delivery Challan Number and Gate Receipt number.
I cannot say that of the total 73 invoices annexed by me alongwith the complaint, 60 of the said invoices (relating to 2003-2004) stand duly paid and also one invoice Exh.CW1/66 has been paid in cash by the accused. I cannot say whether the total amount of the remaining 12 invoices (2004-2005) is approximately Rs.52 lacs or not. (Vol. There are few invoices that have been annexed by me in the FIR instituted by me against the same accused).
I do not remember as to how much payment from the accused in the financial year 2004-2005 was duly credited in my bank account. It is wrong to suggest that the said payment was more than Rs.1 crore. (Vol. I can tell the exact amount after going through the account statement). It is correct that one of my account of the complainant concern is at Punjab National Bank. I cannot say whether I have any bank statement for the said account for the period 2004-2005.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 Surinder Patwa Vs. M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.804/1028.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Surinder Patwa (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that the accused company was the manufacturer/trader of socks. I do not know whether the value of each pair of socks sold by the accused company was less than Rs.100/-. I cannot say that whether as per the law applicable, the accused company was exempted from registration with the Sales Tax Department. In the year 2003-2004, the accused Shitij Kumar had handed over copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate of the accused company bearing No.LC/72/099918/0802. It is correct that as per my complaint the accused had represented that since they were registered with the Sales Tax Department, therefore, it was agreed that all the sales would be made against supply of ST-I Statutory Forms against all sales. The sales made during the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 were against the supply of ST-I forms as well as without ST-I Forms.
The accused company used to always promise to supply ST-I forms against all sales made by me to the accused company as per practice between the complainant and the accused company. The accused company is a registered dealer. The accused company was to be treated as a registered dealer for all the transactions entered into/for all sales made by me to the accused company for the financial years-2003-2004 and 2004-2005. It is correct that in many invoices as annexed by me alongwith the complaint, I have charged the accused company, Sales Tax @ 4% in the said invoices. The complainant was shown Exh.CW1/65 dated 30.04.2004 and he stated that the said sale was against ST-I form and no sales tax was charged on the said sale from the accused company. I cannot say whether there is any endorsement in respect of supply of ST-I form or the charge of sales tax. (Vol. The sale shown under Exh.CW1/65 is against ST-I form). I do not remember whether all the sales made on 30.04.2004 were against the supply of ST-I forms. It is correct that as per the invoice Exh.CW1/66 dated 30.04.2004, I have charged sales tax @ 4% in the said invoice. It is wrong to suggest that the sales tax used to be charged separately or was included in the price of the goods. (Vol. Sales Tax was always shown separately). Invoice Exh.CW1/65 is not in my handwriting. I cannot say that the bills relied upon me whether are in my handwriting or not. Again said Exh.CW1/8, Exh.CW1/10, Exh.CW1/11, Exh.CW1/12, Exh.CW1/24, Exh.CW1/26, Exh.CW1/31, Exh.CW1/53, Exh.CW1/57, Exh.CW1/64 are all written in my handwriting except the signatures of the receipt. (Vol. The remaining invoices were filled in by my employee Tarun who is now expired). The invoices used to be raised after the goods were loaded in the truck/tampoo. It is wrong to suggest that the printed portion in my invoices 'Slip No. and GR No.' are the spaces to be filled with the Delivery Challan Number issued by the complainant and the Gate Receipt Number. Again said that the said spaces were in fact to be filled with Delivery Challan Number and Gate Receipt number.
I cannot say that of the total 73 invoices annexed by me alongwith the complaint, 60 of the said invoices (relating to 2003-2004) stand duly paid and also one invoice Exh.CW1/66 has been paid in cash by the accused. I cannot say whether the total amount of the remaining 12 invoices (2004-2005) is approximately Rs.52 lacs or not. (Vol. There are few invoices that have been annexed by me in the FIR instituted by me against the same accused).
I do not remember as to how much payment from the accused in the financial year 2004-2005 was duly credited in my bank account. It is wrong to suggest that the said payment was more than Rs.1 crore. (Vol. I can tell the exact amount after going through the account statement). It is correct that one of my account of the complainant concern is at Punjab National Bank. I cannot say whether I have any bank statement for the said account for the period 2004-2005.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 Surinder Patwa Vs. M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.5900/1128.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Surinder Patwa (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that the accused company was the manufacturer/trader of socks. I do not know whether the value of each pair of socks sold by the accused company was less than Rs.100/-. I cannot say that whether as per the law applicable, the accused company was exempted from registration with the Sales Tax Department. In the year 2003-2004, the accused Shitij Kumar had handed over copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate of the accused company bearing No.LC/72/099918/0802. It is correct that as per my complaint the accused had represented that since they were registered with the Sales Tax Department, therefore, it was agreed that all the sales would be made against supply of ST-I Statutory Forms against all sales. The sales made during the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 were against the supply of ST-I forms as well as without ST-I Forms.
The accused company used to always promise to supply ST-I forms against all sales made by me to the accused company as per practice between the complainant and the accused company. The accused company is a registered dealer. The accused company was to be treated as a registered dealer for all the transactions entered into/for all sales made by me to the accused company for the financial years-2003-2004 and 2004-2005. It is correct that in many invoices as annexed by me alongwith the complaint, I have charged the accused company, Sales Tax @ 4% in the said invoices. The complainant was shown Exh.CW1/65 dated 30.04.2004 and he stated that the said sale was against ST-I form and no sales tax was charged on the said sale from the accused company. I cannot say whether there is any endorsement in respect of supply of ST-I form or the charge of sales tax. (Vol. The sale shown under Exh.CW1/65 is against ST-I form). I do not remember whether all the sales made on 30.04.2004 were against the supply of ST-I forms. It is correct that as per the invoice Exh.CW1/66 dated 30.04.2004, I have charged sales tax @ 4% in the said invoice. It is wrong to suggest that the sales tax used to be charged separately or was included in the price of the goods. (Vol. Sales Tax was always shown separately). Invoice Exh.CW1/65 is not in my handwriting. I cannot say that the bills relied upon me whether are in my handwriting or not. Again said Exh.CW1/8, Exh.CW1/10, Exh.CW1/11, Exh.CW1/12, Exh.CW1/24, Exh.CW1/26, Exh.CW1/31, Exh.CW1/53, Exh.CW1/57, Exh.CW1/64 are all written in my handwriting except the signatures of the receipt. (Vol. The remaining invoices were filled in by my employee Tarun who is now expired). The invoices used to be raised after the goods were loaded in the truck/tampoo. It is wrong to suggest that the printed portion in my invoices 'Slip No. and GR No.' are the spaces to be filled with the Delivery Challan Number issued by the complainant and the Gate Receipt Number. Again said that the said spaces were in fact to be filled with Delivery Challan Number and Gate Receipt number.
I cannot say that of the total 73 invoices annexed by me alongwith the complaint, 60 of the said invoices (relating to 2003-2004) stand duly paid and also one invoice Exh.CW1/66 has been paid in cash by the accused. I cannot say whether the total amount of the remaining 12 invoices (2004-2005) is approximately Rs.52 lacs or not. (Vol. There are few invoices that have been annexed by me in the FIR instituted by me against the same accused).
I do not remember as to how much payment from the accused in the financial year 2004-2005 was duly credited in my bank account. It is wrong to suggest that the said payment was more than Rs.1 crore. (Vol. I can tell the exact amount after going through the account statement). It is correct that one of my account of the complainant concern is at Punjab National Bank. I cannot say whether I have any bank statement for the said account for the period 2004-2005.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 Surinder Patwa Vs. M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.807/1028.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Surinder Patwa (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. It is correct that the accused company was the manufacturer/trader of socks. I do not know whether the value of each pair of socks sold by the accused company was less than Rs.100/-. I cannot say that whether as per the law applicable, the accused company was exempted from registration with the Sales Tax Department. In the year 2003-2004, the accused Shitij Kumar had handed over copy of Sales Tax Registration Certificate of the accused company bearing No.LC/72/099918/0802. It is correct that as per my complaint the accused had represented that since they were registered with the Sales Tax Department, therefore, it was agreed that all the sales would be made against supply of ST-I Statutory Forms against all sales. The sales made during the year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 were against the supply of ST-I forms as well as without ST-I Forms.
The accused company used to always promise to supply ST-I forms against all sales made by me to the accused company as per practice between the complainant and the accused company. The accused company is a registered dealer. The accused company was to be treated as a registered dealer for all the transactions entered into/for all sales made by me to the accused company for the financial years-2003-2004 and 2004-2005. It is correct that in many invoices as annexed by me alongwith the complaint, I have charged the accused company, Sales Tax @ 4% in the said invoices. The complainant was shown Exh.CW1/65 dated 30.04.2004 and he stated that the said sale was against ST-I form and no sales tax was charged on the said sale from the accused company. I cannot say whether there is any endorsement in respect of supply of ST-I form or the charge of sales tax. (Vol. The sale shown under Exh.CW1/65 is against ST-I form). I do not remember whether all the sales made on 30.04.2004 were against the supply of ST-I forms. It is correct that as per the invoice Exh.CW1/66 dated 30.04.2004, I have charged sales tax @ 4% in the said invoice. It is wrong to suggest that the sales tax used to be charged separately or was included in the price of the goods. (Vol. Sales Tax was always shown separately). Invoice Exh.CW1/65 is not in my handwriting. I cannot say that the bills relied upon me whether are in my handwriting or not. Again said Exh.CW1/8, Exh.CW1/10, Exh.CW1/11, Exh.CW1/12, Exh.CW1/24, Exh.CW1/26, Exh.CW1/31, Exh.CW1/53, Exh.CW1/57, Exh.CW1/64 are all written in my handwriting except the signatures of the receipt. (Vol. The remaining invoices were filled in by my employee Tarun who is now expired). The invoices used to be raised after the goods were loaded in the truck/tampoo. It is wrong to suggest that the printed portion in my invoices 'Slip No. and GR No.' are the spaces to be filled with the Delivery Challan Number issued by the complainant and the Gate Receipt Number. Again said that the said spaces were in fact to be filled with Delivery Challan Number and Gate Receipt number.
I cannot say that of the total 73 invoices annexed by me alongwith the complaint, 60 of the said invoices (relating to 2003-2004) stand duly paid and also one invoice Exh.CW1/66 has been paid in cash by the accused. I cannot say whether the total amount of the remaining 12 invoices (2004-2005) is approximately Rs.52 lacs or not. (Vol. There are few invoices that have been annexed by me in the FIR instituted by me against the same accused).
I do not remember as to how much payment from the accused in the financial year 2004-2005 was duly credited in my bank account. It is wrong to suggest that the said payment was more than Rs.1 crore. (Vol. I can tell the exact amount after going through the account statement). It is correct that one of my account of the complainant concern is at Punjab National Bank. I cannot say whether I have any bank statement for the said account for the period 2004-2005.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Roopshree Creations Vs. Niranjan Kumar Nagia
C.C.No.5224/10
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. Ranjiv Khanna (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Abeny Kumar Dey, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. I am the parter of the complainant firm and residing at 729, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-10006. I am running my business in the name and style of M/s Roop Shree Creations from 1899, First Floor, Main Road (near Katr4a Shahan Shahi), Opp. Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
Q. In your evidence at Para No.3, you have written that accused Niranjan Kumar and his sister concern supplied the goods to the complainant firm. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct.
It is correct that I used to supply goods to the accused and his sister concern since the year 1992.
Q. Do you know the address and names of sister concern of accused ? Ans. Yes. These are Chhabra Sari Sangam and other firms I do not remember.
Cross-examination deferred for after lunch time.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Roopshree Creations Vs. Niranjan Kumar Nagia
C.C.No.5225/10
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. Ranjiv Khanna (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Abeny Kumar Dey, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. I am the parter of the complainant firm and residing at 729, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-10006. I am running my business in the name and style of M/s Roop Shree Creations from 1899, First Floor, Main Road (near Katr4a Shahan Shahi), Opp. Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
Q. In your evidence at Para No.3, you have written that accused Niranjan Kumar and his sister concern supplied the goods to the complainant firm. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct.
It is correct that I used to supply goods to the accused and his sister concern since the year 1992.
Q. Do you know the address and names of sister concern of accused ? Ans. Yes. These are Chhabra Sari Sangam and other firms I do not remember.
Cross-examination deferred for after lunch time.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Roopshree Creations Vs. Niranjan Kumar Nagia
C.C.No.5211/10
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. Ranjiv Khanna (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Abeny Kumar Dey, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. I am the parter of the complainant firm and residing at 729, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-10006. I am running my business in the name and style of M/s Roop Shree Creations from 1899, First Floor, Main Road (near Katr4a Shahan Shahi), Opp. Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
Q. In your evidence at Para No.3, you have written that accused Niranjan Kumar and his sister concern supplied the goods to the complainant firm. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct.
It is correct that I used to supply goods to the accused and his sister concern since the year 1992.
Q. Do you know the address and names of sister concern of accused ? Ans. Yes. These are Chhabra Sari Sangam and other firms I do not remember.
Cross-examination deferred for after lunch time.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Roopshree Creations Vs. Niranjan Kumar Nagia
C.C.No.5222/10
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. Ranjiv Khanna (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Abeny Kumar Dey, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. I am the parter of the complainant firm and residing at 729, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-10006. I am running my business in the name and style of M/s Roop Shree Creations from 1899, First Floor, Main Road (near Katr4a Shahan Shahi), Opp. Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
Q. In your evidence at Para No.3, you have written that accused Niranjan Kumar and his sister concern supplied the goods to the complainant firm. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct.
It is correct that I used to supply goods to the accused and his sister concern since the year 1992.
Q. Do you know the address and names of sister concern of accused ? Ans. Yes. These are Chhabra Sari Sangam and other firms I do not remember.
Cross-examination deferred for after lunch time.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Roopshree Creations Vs. Niranjan Kumar Nagia
C.C.No.5204/10
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. Ranjiv Khanna (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Abeny Kumar Dey, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. I am the parter of the complainant firm and residing at 729, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-10006. I am running my business in the name and style of M/s Roop Shree Creations from 1899, First Floor, Main Road (near Katr4a Shahan Shahi), Opp. Bank of India, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
Q. In your evidence at Para No.3, you have written that accused Niranjan Kumar and his sister concern supplied the goods to the complainant firm. What do you have to say ?
Ans. It is correct.
It is correct that I used to supply goods to the accused and his sister concern since the year 1992.
Q. Do you know the address and names of sister concern of accused ? Ans. Yes. These are Chhabra Sari Sangam and other firms I do not remember.
Cross-examination deferred for after lunch time.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Roopshree Creations Vs. Niranjan Kumar Nagia
C.C.No.
28.04.2012
Statement of Mr. Ranjiv Khanna (recalled for further cross-examination after lunch). XXXXX by Mr. Abeny Kumar Dey, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. The addresses and names of accused firms are Aanchal Silk and Sarees running from 484, Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and Gagandeep Emporium running from A-7, South Extn. Part- II, New Delhi, Roop Collection, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. I used to supply goods to all these accused firms. You have also written that since 1992 he was selling goods to the sister concern. It is correct that my partnership firm dealing at mentioned address in the affidavit and you have achieved goodwill and business reputation in the concerned market. It is correct that I was maintaining the books of account and transactions which had been taken between the accused and his sister concern.
Q. Whatever goods you sold what was the mode of payment? Ans. Through cheque. Q. On 15.12.2004 you have written that you have received a cheque of Rs.3 lacs was it against payment of goods supplied? Ans. Yes. Q. What was the number and bill and date of the bill? Whether you issue any receipt against the cheque? Ans. I do not remember the bill number and date. Q. You have written in your evidence accused has given cheque bearing No.496929 dated
15.12.2004 against the discharge of his liability. What was his liability?
Ans. I sold the sarees, suit, lehanga etc. Q. Have you sent the cheque in bank for collection on 15.12.2004 and there is no slip on the
record. What was the reason and what was the balance liability at that day? Whether you have filed any civil recovery suit regarding outstanding amount or total amount? Ans. I had sent a cheque for encashment in my bank which was dishonoured due to insufficient of funds. I had not filed any suit for recovery.
I requested to the accused after dishonouring of the cheque for payment and balance payment through demand notice. I do not remember whether I had received any reply to the legal demand notice. I do not know whether I had ever filed any police complaint against the accused or not. Our firm used to pay the taxes. I have never received any other cheque from the accused after dishonoured of instant cheques. It is correct that I never sent any legal demand notice at the address i.e 484 Katra Asarfi Road, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. It is correct that I have never filed any complaint against the postman regarding alleged connivance with the postman. It is wrong to suggest that there are other matters pending between the parties. I have already filed bills in respect of the amount claimed. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Kailash and company Vs. V.K. Gupta
C.C.No.1337/10
Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR of the complainant company recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Kailash and company Vs. V.K. Gupta
C.C.No.1318/10
Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR of the complainant company recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 M/s D.R.K. Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. V. Singh & Ors.
C.C.No.4587/10Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR of the complainant company recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
Arjun Kohli Vs. C.S. Verma
C.C.No.6105/11
Present: SPA of the complainant with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of SPA of the complainant recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Put up before the Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
Ms. Rajwant Kaur Vs. Sukhdev Singh @ Sachdev Singh
C.C.No.5998/11
Present: Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), 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 the accused Sukhdev Singh @ Sachdev Singh 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.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Ravi Organics Ltd. Vs. M/s Rathi Beej Bhandar
C.C.No.6529/12
Present: AR of the Complainant company with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), 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 the accused M/s Rathi Beej Bhandar 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.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 02.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
M/s Ravi Organics Ltd. Vs. M/s Shiv Agro Sales
C.C.No.6530/12
Present: AR of the Complainant company with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), 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 the accused M/s Shiv Agro Sales 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.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 02.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012
Jaspal Singh Alagh Vs. M/s Denim Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.6618/12Present: Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), 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 No.1 and Accused No.2 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.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 01.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 M/s Sunita Luthra Vs. Industrial and Laboratory Tools Corporation & Anr.
C.C.No.6413/11
28.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), 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 No.1 and Accused No.2 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.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 05.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012 M/s Sunita Luthra Vs. Industrial and Laboratory Tools Corporation & Anr.
C.C.No.6412/11
28.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), 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 No.1 and Accused No.2 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.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 05.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/28.04.2012