Delhi District Court
M/S Bharat Insecticides Ltd. vs . M/S Kanakdurga Fertilizer S, ... on 20 October, 2012
M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. M/s Kanakdurga Fertilizer s, Pesticides & Seeds & Anr. CC No.2071/10 20.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Constable Mohan absent.
He be called for 04.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Lagi Shetty Ramesh
CC No.6752/12
20.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant. He has also filed affidavit on evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that court fee shall not be collected in the complaint U/s 138 NI Act. The issue of court fee shall now be subject to the final outcome of petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 r/w 141 NI Act. Accused be summoned through all modes for 12.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Manilal Patel CC No.6753/12 20.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant. He has also filed affidavit on evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that court fee shall not be collected in the complaint U/s 138 NI Act. The issue of court fee shall now be subject to the final outcome of petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 r/w 141 NI Act. Accused be summoned through all modes for 12.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. K. Gopal Krishna CC No.6756/12 20.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant. He has also filed affidavit on evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that court fee shall not be collected in the complaint U/s 138 NI Act. The issue of court fee shall now be subject to the final outcome of petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 r/w 141 NI Act. Accused be summoned through all modes for 12.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Ms. Sunita Bhatter CC No.6755/12 20.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant. He has also filed affidavit on evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that court fee shall not be collected in the complaint U/s 138 NI Act. The issue of court fee shall now be subject to the final outcome of petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 r/w 141 NI Act. Accused be summoned through all modes for 12.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. Varade Sambhaji Nana CC No.6754/12 20.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant. He has also filed affidavit on evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit is marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that court fee shall not be collected in the complaint U/s 138 NI Act. The issue of court fee shall now be subject to the final outcome of petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 r/w 141 NI Act. Accused be summoned through all modes for 12.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Harish Chandra Yadav Vs. Shree Baiju
CC No.6795/12
20.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant. He has also filed affidavit on evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit has already been marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that court fee shall not be collected in the complaint U/s 138 NI Act. The issue of court fee shall now be subject to the final outcome of petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 r/w 141 NI Act. Accused be summoned through all modes for 11.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Harish Chandra Yadav Vs. Shree Baiju
CC No.6797/12
20.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant. He has also filed affidavit on evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. The affidavit has already been marked as Mark-R for the purpose of identification.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has directed that court fee shall not be collected in the complaint U/s 138 NI Act. The issue of court fee shall now be subject to the final outcome of petitions filed before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 r/w 141 NI Act. Accused be summoned through all modes for 11.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. M/s Sanjeeva Seeds & Pesticides & Ors.
CC No.4685/1/A
20.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Process Server absent.
He be called for 04.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
M/s City Car Care Vs. Ms. Charanjeet Kaur
CC No.2079/10
20.10.2012
Statement of Mr. S.S. Hora, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant firm. Without Oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that I have the instructions from the complainant to withdraw the present complaint case since the complainant does not want to prosecute the present matter as the husband of the accused has expired. Complainant firm has no further grievance against the accused.
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be withdrawn. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 ALA Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gemini Polycoats (P) Ltd.
CC No.6313/1120.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Vijay Khurana, 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 the present complaint case in full and final settlement with respect to the cheques in question. Accused has made the entire settlement amount of Rs.1 lac to me. I have no further grievance against the accused as nothing remains due towards the accused in the present complaint case.
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 20.10.2012 ALA Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Gemini Polycoats (P) Ltd.
CC No.6313/1120.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Accused is acquitted of the charges.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond, if any, be discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s City Car Care Vs. Ms. Charanjeet Kaur CC No.2079/10 20.10.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant wants to withdraw the matter.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant recorded in this respect.
As per his statement, husband of the accused has expired and complainant does not want to prosecute the present matter against the accused.
The matter is dismissed as withdrawn.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Rajeev Goel Vs. Ashok Sharma
CC No.1940/10
20.10.2012
Statement of DW4 Ms. Deepti Sharma, aged about 39 years, W/o Ashok Sharma, R/o 36-D, DDA Flats, Sector-7, Pocket-I, Dwarka, New Delhi.
On S.A. I know the complainant since the year 2002-2003 as he was having business terms with my husband. Previously we used to reside at Shastri Nagar. I do not know the details in respect of the loan but there were some transactions between Rajeev Goel and Ashok Sharma. My husband had made payments to the complainant on several occasions in my presence. I cannot tell the details of these payments because sometime my husband used to give cheques and sometimes cash. Thereafter, my husband shifted his business and residence at Bahadurgarh, Haryana and thereto the business transaction continued between my husband and the complainant. I made a payment of Rs.1 lac to my husband on 28.06.2007 at Bahadurgarh and my husband made this payment to Mr. Rajeev Goel in my presence. I know nothing more about the transaction between my husband and the complainant. XXXXX by Mr. O.P. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
My husband has not taken any receipt from the complainant. Though he has asked for the same and Mr. Rajeev Goel refused to issue any receipt against the payment received from the accused on the pretext that Mr. Rajeev Geol has also given a loan to her husband without any receipt. No notice about the refusal of issuing of receipt against the payment received by Mr. Rajeev Goel has been given by my husband as per my knowledge. It is wrong to suggest that my hasband has made any payment in my presence to the complainant ever. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposited falsely today in the court. My husband has brought me today in the court as I am not summoned witness.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Rajeev Goel Vs. Ashok Sharma
CC No.1955/10
20.10.2012
Statement of DW4 Ms. Deepti Sharma, aged about 39 years, W/o Ashok Sharma, R/o 36-D, DDA Flats, Sector-7, Pocket-I, Dwarka, New Delhi.
On S.A. I know the complainant since the year 2002-2003 as he was having business terms with my husband. Previously we used to reside at Shastri Nagar. I do not know the details in respect of the loan but there were some transactions between Rajeev Goel and Ashok Sharma. My husband had made payments to the complainant on several occasions in my presence. I cannot tell the details of these payments because sometime my husband used to give cheques and sometimes cash. Thereafter, my husband shifted his business and residence at Bahadurgarh, Haryana and thereto the business transaction continued between my husband and the complainant. I made a payment of Rs.1 lac to my husband on 28.06.2007 at Bahadurgarh and my husband made this payment to Mr. Rajeev Goel in my presence. I know nothing more about the transaction between my husband and the complainant. XXXXX by Mr. O.P. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
My husband has not taken any receipt from the complainant. Though he has asked for the same and Mr. Rajeev Goel refused to issue any receipt against the payment received from the accused on the pretext that Mr. Rajeev Geol has also given a loan to her husband without any receipt. No notice about the refusal of issuing of receipt against the payment received by Mr. Rajeev Goel has been given by my husband as per my knowledge. It is wrong to suggest that my hasband has made any payment in my presence to the complainant ever. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposited falsely today in the court. My husband has brought me today in the court as I am not summoned witness.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Rajeev Goel Vs. Ashok Sharma
CC No.1963/10
20.10.2012
Statement of DW4 Ms. Deepti Sharma, aged about 39 years, W/o Ashok Sharma, R/o 36-D, DDA Flats, Sector-7, Pocket-I, Dwarka, New Delhi.
On S.A. I know the complainant since the year 2002-2003 as he was having business terms with my husband. Previously we used to reside at Shastri Nagar. I do not know the details in respect of the loan but there were some transactions between Rajeev Goel and Ashok Sharma. My husband had made payments to the complainant on several occasions in my presence. I cannot tell the details of these payments because sometime my husband used to give cheques and sometimes cash. Thereafter, my husband shifted his business and residence at Bahadurgarh, Haryana and thereto the business transaction continued between my husband and the complainant. I made a payment of Rs.1 lac to my husband on 28.06.2007 at Bahadurgarh and my husband made this payment to Mr. Rajeev Goel in my presence. I know nothing more about the transaction between my husband and the complainant. XXXXX by Mr. O.P. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
My husband has not taken any receipt from the complainant. Though he has asked for the same and Mr. Rajeev Goel refused to issue any receipt against the payment received from the accused on the pretext that Mr. Rajeev Geol has also given a loan to her husband without any receipt. No notice about the refusal of issuing of receipt against the payment received by Mr. Rajeev Goel has been given by my husband as per my knowledge. It is wrong to suggest that my hasband has made any payment in my presence to the complainant ever. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposited falsely today in the court. My husband has brought me today in the court as I am not summoned witness.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Surender Kumar Verma Vs. Suresh Chawla & Anr.
CC No.6816/12
20.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Surender Kumar Verma, Complainant. On S.A..
I, the above named complainant do hereby state that I do not want to prosecute the present matter against the accused as the accused has assured me to make the payment. Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be withdrawn.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Khatkar Beej Bhandar CC No.510/10 20.10.2012 Statement of DW2 Birender Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o Sh. Chander Singh, R/o VP of Brahkhurd, Tehsil Jind, District Jind, Haryana (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. M.P. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the complainant company.
I am the Proprietor of Birender Beej Bhandar. Then said my other partner is Mr. Ramphal. The business of Birender Beej Bhandar is being looked after by me and by Mr. Ramphal. I left the business in the year 2007 and presently I am carrying on the work of having buffaloes for dairy. I know the accused since the year 2001. I was not a dealer of the complainant company. I never applied for the dealership of the complainant company. I have purchased goods worth Rs.10-12 lacs in total from the accused from the year 2001 to 2005. Out of this Rs.10-12 lacs I have purchased goods worth Rs.4-5 lacs from the accused. I have purchased rogors 30% worth Rs.1800/- from the accused and this product bears the Batch No.104/AP06 which is 10 ltrs. As per the bill the date of purchase is 20.08.2002. It is correct that the complainant has sold the material of this batch number i.e. 104/AP06 to the accused. I do not have any documentary evidence to confirm the same. My total turn over during one year was Rs.10-12 lacs. I worked in the line of selling pesticides for seven years i.e. 2001 to 2006. I do not remember as to how much worth of material produced by the complainant company purchased by me from the accused during my association with the accused. My business was as a retailer only. I do not remember as to where from the accused purchased the subject material i.e. rogors of Batch No.104/AP06 of which the sample was obtained by the Quality Control Inspector as alleged by me. I do not remember how much material of Anu brand was purchased by me from the accused. We used to sell material of other companies also. I used to earn 4-5% profit on the material sold to my shop. It is correct to say that I suffered a loss of Rs.15 lacs as per my statement dated 13.09.2012. It is correct that out of the total turn over of my shop worth Rs.10-12 lacs in total during the year 2001 to 2006, I could have earned profit of Rs.15 lacs which has being shown as a loss to me. I have not brought any sales tax return or any income tax return nor any other document to show that I incurred the said loss which I can bring for all these years. It is wrong to suggest that I did not purchase the material of Anu brand of the particular batch number the sample of which was failed during the entire period of six years of my business, there was no single instance of the sample of any product of Anu brand having been failed or found defective. I do not know that the complainant has sold total material worth about Rs.5,19,000/- to the accused during the entire business association of the accused with the complainant. The total value of rogors I purchased from the accused is worth Rs.1800/- on dated 20.08.2002. I never found any defect or problem in respect of the goods received by Anu Products. It is wrong to suggest that I am giving wrong evidence on behalf of accused as I am connived with the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Khatkar Beej Bhandar CC No.509/10 20.10.2012 Statement of DW2 Birender Singh, aged about 38 years, S/o Sh. Chander Singh, R/o VP of Brahkhurd, Tehsil Jind, District Jind, Haryana (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. M.P. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the complainant company.
I am the Proprietor of Birender Beej Bhandar. Then said my other partner is Mr. Ramphal. The business of Birender Beej Bhandar is being looked after by me and by Mr. Ramphal. I left the business in the year 2007 and presently I am carrying on the work of having buffaloes for dairy. I know the accused since the year 2001. I was not a dealer of the complainant company. I never applied for the dealership of the complainant company. I have purchased goods worth Rs.10-12 lacs in total from the accused from the year 2001 to 2005. Out of this Rs.10-12 lacs I have purchased goods worth Rs.4-5 lacs from the accused. I have purchased rogors 30% worth Rs.1800/- from the accused and this product bears the Batch No.104/AP06 which is 10 ltrs. As per the bill the date of purchase is 20.08.2002. It is correct that the complainant has sold the material of this batch number i.e. 104/AP06 to the accused. I do not have any documentary evidence to confirm the same. My total turn over during one year was Rs.10-12 lacs. I worked in the line of selling pesticides for seven years i.e. 2001 to 2006. I do not remember as to how much worth of material produced by the complainant company purchased by me from the accused during my association with the accused. My business was as a retailer only. I do not remember as to where from the accused purchased the subject material i.e. rogors of Batch No.104/AP06 of which the sample was obtained by the Quality Control Inspector as alleged by me. I do not remember how much material of Anu brand was purchased by me from the accused. We used to sell material of other companies also. I used to earn 4-5% profit on the material sold to my shop. It is correct to say that I suffered a loss of Rs.15 lacs as per my statement dated 13.09.2012. It is correct that out of the total turn over of my shop worth Rs.10-12 lacs in total during the year 2001 to 2006, I could have earned profit of Rs.15 lacs which has being shown as a loss to me. I have not brought any sales tax return or any income tax return nor any other document to show that I incurred the said loss which I can bring for all these years. It is wrong to suggest that I did not purchase the material of Anu brand of the particular batch number the sample of which was failed during the entire period of six years of my business, there was no single instance of the sample of any product of Anu brand having been failed or found defective. I do not know that the complainant has sold total material worth about Rs.5,19,000/- to the accused during the entire business association of the accused with the complainant. The total value of rogors I purchased from the accused is worth Rs.1800/- on dated 20.08.2002. I never found any defect or problem in respect of the goods received by Anu Products. It is wrong to suggest that I am giving wrong evidence on behalf of accused as I am connived with the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Khatkar Beej Bhandar CC No.509/10 20.10.2012 Statement of accused Ramesh Khatkar, Proprietor of Ramesh Khatkar Beej Bhandar. On S.A. I, the above named accused do hereby close my defence evidence in the present matter. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Khatkar Beej Bhandar CC No.510/10 20.10.2012 Statement of accused Ramesh Khatkar, Proprietor of Ramesh Khatkar Beej Bhandar. On S.A. I, the above named accused do hereby close my defence evidence in the present matter. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Khatkar Beej Bhandar CC No.509/10 & 510/10 20.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
These are two connected matters.
DW2 Cross-examined. Discharged.
DE closed by separate statement of accused.
List for final arguments on 02.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 Jaspal Singh Vs. Ms. Asha Rani CC No.4422/10 20.10.2012 Statement of Complainant Mr. Jaspal Singh, about 37 years, S/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh, R/o X-32, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 (recalled for cross-examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. Durgesh Rao, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
I am M.Tech. (Computer Science) by qualification. I had done my graduation from SGTB Khalsa College (Morning), North Campus, Delhi. The complaint was drafted in the chamber of my lawyer Dr. Sarabjeet Sharma in the end of June 2009. I do not remember the exact date of signing of the complaint and attestation of the affidavit Exh.C-1.
Q. The complaint filed by you does not bear the Verification Clause. What do you have to say ? Ans. The Verification Clause was there when I had signed the complaint.
At this stage, the file is shown to the witness to point out the verification clause signed by him. The witness is unable to point out the verification clause and he states that the said complaint was drafted at my instance.
It is correct that the complaint is not supported by any affidavit. It is correct that the affidavit Exh.C-1 does not bear my signatures on each page except the Mark-A and B. It is correct that verification clause of Exh.C-1 does not depict which paras of my complaint are true to my knowledge and which paras are true on the basis of legal advice and how many paras are there. (Vol. I have gone through the contents of the entire affidavit and then I put my signatures at Point A and B. It is correct that M/s Shruti Fasteners is a limited company. I am doing my own business as a Director in M/s Shruitraj Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. I know the difference in liabilities of the company and that of the Directors. (Vol. As has been told by my Chartered Accountant). It is correct that the Director cannot be bound for the liability of the company in his individual capacity. (Vol. As per my knowledge the Directors who sign or is authorized signatory on behalf of the company can be bound for the liability of the company in the individual capacity).
Cross-examination deferred at lunch time.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 Jaspal Singh Vs. Ms. Asha Rani CC No.4422/10 20.10.2012 Present: Complainant with ld. counsel Sh. Sompal Verma.
Accused with ld. counsel Sh. Durgesh Rao.
Complainant cross-examined in part. Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the complainant.
Put up for further cross-examination on 07.11.2012 at request of both the sides.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 Jaspal Singh Vs. Ms. Asha Rani CC No.4381/10 20.10.2012 Present: Complainant with ld. counsel Sh. Sompal Verma.
Accused with ld. counsel Sh. Durgesh Rao.
Accused has filed an application for leading defence evidence.
Application for summoning of witnesses alongwith list of witnesses has also been filed by the accused.
List with connected matter on 07.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Bharat Bhushan Vs. Virender Verma
CC No.657/10
20.10.2012
Statement of DW1 Ashok Bansal, aged about 42 years, S/o Ram Lal Bansal, R/o H.No.84, Ward No.12, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab.
XXXXX by Mr. Satya Prakash, Ld. Counsel for the complainant. On S.A. I am presently working with the company Sat Isabgol, RR C&F Agents Pvt. Ltd. Timber Market, Plot No.32, Sector-26, Chandigarh. The management has not issued appointment letter to me. I am not having any documentary proof that I am working with the above said company. I am working there as a Salesman and also book the order in my own handwriting. I do not know the name of the company but I am doing the job under Bharat Bhushan. I was not an employee of Bharat Bhushan. (Vol. I was a Commission Agent). I used to sell the products of Manik Group i.e. Hans Snow Cream. I was not given any order book by the complainant. I have not booked any order from any other customer except the accused. I do not know the name by which the Manik Group is owned but I knew only the complainant. I am not having any documentary proof that I was working with Manik Group or with Bharat Bhushan. I do not know the name of the Accountant also. I have not got any commission salary from the complainant through cheque or through bank account. I do not know from where the Bharat Bhushan is working in Delhi nor I know the address or place where the office of Bharat Bhushan is situated. It is also correct that I do not know how many persons were working under Bharat Bhushan. It is also correct that I do not know since when the Bharat Bhushan is working in this business. It is correct that Bharat Bhushan has no concern whatsoever with the Manik Group. Again said it is wrong that Bharat Bhushan has no concern with the Manik Group. I do not know whether Sh. Bharat Bhushan has any concern with Manik Group or not. (Vol. I am having concern with the distributor). I do not know the name under which name and style the letter pad and order book of Bharat Bhushan was printed. I do not have any letter pad or order book of the complainant. I do not have any documentary proof with me that I have got any commission or anything else after leaving the job. It is wrong to suggest that I had not done the job under Bharat Bhushan. I have worked under the accused for three years i.e. from 2001 to 2004. It is wrong to suggest that I have given the false evidence before this hon'ble court. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 Jaspal Singh Vs. Ms. Asha Rani CC No.4422/10 20.10.2012 Statement of Complainant Mr. Jaspal Singh, about 37 years, S/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh, R/o X-32, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 (recalled for further cross-examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act after lunch time).
XXXXX by Mr. Durgesh Rao, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. The complaint is regarding the dishonoured cheques. The alleged commission was to be paid by the company M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. I have made M/s Shruti Fasteners a party to the complaint. At this stage, the complainant is shown the file to point out where M/s Shruti Fasteners has been made a party. Complainant has pointed out to the portion A to A. (Court Observation: That complaint is showing the accused Asha Rani as an Authorized Signatory/Director, M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. There is nothing on the complaint title to show that company has been arrayed as an accused). It is correct that Exh.C-1/2, Exh.C-1/3 and Exh.C-1/4 are of M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. but I cannot tell whether it is of Current Account or Cash Credit Account of the company M/s Shruti Fasteners. It is correct that the endorsement made on the cheques and signatures are in different handwriting and ink. The endorsement and the amount filled in blank ink has been filled up by the Accountant of the company M/s Shruti Fasteners, namely, Mahmood Khan. It is correct that all the cheques bear the same date of 31.05.2009. I do not know whether Mahmood Khan had been expelled from the job from M/s Shruti Fasteners on account of manipulating the records and criminal breach of trust for leaking the secrets of the company. Sh. Mahmood Khan has been made a witness in the list of witnesses filed alongwith the complaint but nothing has been mentioned about his endorsing his cheques or doing any work has been mentioned in the complaint. I cannot say whether the bank issues new cheque book only when the earlier cheque book is on the verge of being exhausted. I cannot say that the cheques Exh.C-1/2, Exh.C-1/3 and Exh.C-1/4 are from the account of Shruti Fasteners which was closed on 13.02.2007. I cannot say whether the cheques Exh.C-1/2, Exh.C-1/3 and Exh.C-1/4 are from the cheque book containing leaves from 021451 to 021500. I cannot say whether the bank had issued the cheque book bearing No.021451 to 021500 on 10.12.2004. I cannot say whether the said cheque book was used/consumed till February 2005. I cannot say whether the UTI bank (Axis Bank) had issued 53 cheque books of 50 leaves each after 10.12.2004 till the closing of account on 13.02.2007. At this stage, the certificate of UTI Bank (Axis Bank) is shown to the witness. I cannot say anything about the certificate. The same is Mark-A/Ex.CW1/P. It is wrong to suggest that the present complaint has been filed illegally by me on the basis of the stolen cheques illegally in collusion with my brother and Ex-Accountant Malai Kumar Garai and Mahmood Khan. The company M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. has not given me any appointment letter regarding my appointment as Sales Manager though I had been looking after the marketing of the company from the year 2002 to 2006. (Vol. I had worked from 2002 to 2008). It is correct that my salary was fixed as Rs.6,000/- per month when I joined the company. Q. Can you tell the annual sales turn over of the company M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. for the year April 2002 to March 2003 ?
Ans. The same is related to the matters of the company. I am not aware about the exact turn over but it was Rs.10 to 12 crores per month. Again said it was Rs.10-12 crores per year. Q. Can you tell the annual sales turn over of the company M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. for the year April 2003 to March 2004 ?
Ans. The same is related to the matters of the company. I am not aware about the exact turn over but it was Rs.10 to 12 crores per year.
Q. Can you tell the annual sales turn over of the company M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. for the year April 2004 to March 2005 ?
Ans. The same is related to the matters of the company. I am not aware about the exact turn over but it was Rs.10 to 12 crores per year.
Q. Can you tell the annual sales turn over of the company M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. for the year April 2005 to March 2006 ?
Ans. The same is related to the matters of the company. I am not aware about the exact turn over but it was Rs.10 to 12 crores per year.
Q. Was there any official stationery of M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. ? What do you have to say ? Ans. To my knowledge there was no official stationery of M/s Shruti Fasterners Ltd. Only the E-mail used to be sent.
I cannot say whether I have received the entire salary from the year 2002 to December 2006. (Vol. All the salary has been directed deposited in my bank account). I cannot say whether Asha Rani had filed civil suit for recovery against me in May 2009. (Vol. I had received the summons from the court in September 2009). It is wrong to suggest that neither me nor my brother had worked for M/s Shruti Fasteners after December 2006. (Vol. Me and my brother had worked for the company till May 2008). I have documentary proof that I had worked for M/s Shruti Fasteners Ltd. till May 2008. I can produce the same.
Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the complainant. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 State Vs. Shri Bhagwan FIR No.215/05 PS : Darya Ganj U/s 279/337/338 IPC 20.10.2012 Present: Accused in person.
IO Retd. SI Ramswaroop.
Complainant and conviction report be called for 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 State Vs. Mukesh FIR No.91/11 PS : Vikas Puri U/s 279 IPC 3/181/5/180 M.V. Act.
20.10.2012
Present: IO ASI Karamvir.
Conviction report filed.
Notice to Complainant, accused and IO be issued for 08.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
State Vs. Rajender
FIR No.689/08
PS : Nangloi
U/s 457/380/411 IPC
20.10.2012
Present: Accused with counsel.
IO, Complainant and conviction report be called for 01.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012 M/s Philco Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Medilab Systems & Anr. CC No.4971/10, 5165/10, 5162/10, 5161/10, 5163/10 & 5164/10 20.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are six connected matters.
Today ld. counsel for the accused filed written arguments.
He undertakes to supply the copy to the AR of the complainant.
Complainant may also file written arguments/rejoinder, if any.
List for pronouncement of judgment on 05.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Ms. Dhanpati Devi Vs. Akhil Jain
CC No.5374/1
20.10.2012
File taken up on an application for cancellation of endorsement on the Kisan Vikas Patra of Surety Raj Kumar.
Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Endorsement accordingly cancelled.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
20.10.2012
Surender Kumar Verma Vs. Suresh Chawla & Anr.
CC No.6816/12
20.10.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Complainant wants to withdraw the matter.
Separate statement of the complainant recorded in this respect.
As per his statement, accused has assured him to make the payment.
The matter is dismissed as withdrawn.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 20.10.2012