Delhi District Court
M/S Capital Books Pvt. Ltd. vs . Theodore Branganza on 25 April, 2012
M/s Capital Books Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Theodore Branganza C.C.No.6029/11 & 6030/11 25.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Accused has also deposited the cost of Rs.3,000/- in each case with DLSA. Receipt taken on record.
At request of the parties, matter be sent to Mediation Cell today itself after lunch.
Regular date is 14.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Chemicide India Ltd. Vs. Babu Lal Yadav C.C.No.5537/11 25.04.2012 Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 At 03.30 p.m. Present: None.
Complaint dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Philco Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Medilab Systems C.C.No.5163/10 25.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Matter is listed for further cross-examination of the complainant.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 After lunch.
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Complainant further cross-examined.
Cross-examination deferred as it is lunch time and ld. counsel for the accused is not after lunch.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he has to go to the hospital.
At request, adjourned to 02.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Varun Wasandi Vs. M/s New Era Press Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.5970/1
25.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused No.2 in person.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that complainant does not want to proceed with the present case.
Accused seeks a passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 After lunch Present: Complainant in person.
Accused No.2 with counsel.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused No.3 on the ground that accused is not in Delhi.
I consider that such frivolous exemption application cannot be allowed.
Accused No.3 is directed to appear in person.
Parties want sometime for settlement.
At request, list on 19.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Greenland Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Kaushik C.C.No.1436/10 25.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Matter is listed for settlement.
Accused submits that he is willing and ready to pay the amount to the complainant.
Be awaited for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 At 01.25 p.m. Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Accused has given Rs.12,100/- to the complainant.
Separate statement of AR of the complainant company recorded in this respect.
List the matter for Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012 for final disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Dharmender Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma C.C.No.4268/10 25.04.2012 Present: None.
BW for the last date has been received with a report Kuchh pata nahi chal saka.
Fresh NBW has also been received with a report already left the address.
It appears that complainant is not appearing for the last several dates.
Be awaited for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 At 03.25 p.m. Present: None.
Complaint is dismissed as the complainant is not appearing for the last several dates.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Sanjay Garg C.C.No.4899/10 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
There is no report in respect of compliance of the last order. However, complainant submits that matter has been settled with the accused.
Separate statement of the complainant recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
List the matter before Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Vijay Yadav Vs. Sudhir Patel / Kanaujia & Anr.
C.C.No.2752/1025.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
The matter is settled between the parties.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Matter be 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/25.04.2012 Vishal Jain Vs. Shanu Mohammad C.C.No.2364/10 25.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is, however, seeking time on the ground that he is not well.
Adjourned to 02.05.2012.
At specific request of ld. counsel for the accused, date is changed to 09.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Jaspal Singh C.C.No.6447/12 25.04.2012 Present: Advocate Sh. Vipin Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with ld. proxy counsel.
Ld. Advocate for complainant submits that he will be filing Vakalatnama.
Accused has filed fresh bail bond and surety bond. Accepted.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant seeks an adjournment on the ground that he has to receive relevant documents from Bhopal.
Adjourned to 05.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Perfect Leasing & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Manju Mittal C.C.No.3516/10 25.04.2012 Present: None.
HC Puran Singh is present.
His statement in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. is recorded.
Pre-summoning affidavit of the complainant can be read in evidence whenever the accused is apprehended. Therefore, there is no necessity to proceed with the case U/s 299 Cr.P.C.
SHO is directed to register an FIR against the accused U/s 174A IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to the SHO.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 I.P.M.T. Educational Institute Vs. Pradeep Dabas C.C.No.2218/10 25.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
SI Prem Pal is present and has filed the affidavit as required in terms of order dated 02.05.2012.
Before lunch time, one witness from the Punjab National Bank was available and had filed a request letter for some more time.
One more opportunity is given to the PNB to bring the record.
Accused to assist by providing complete and necessary details.
List on 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 C.C.No.4899/10 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
There is no report in respect of compliance of the last order.
However, complainant submits that matter has been settled with the accused.
Statement of the complainant recorded in this respect.
Matter stands settled U/s 147 NI Act.
List before the Lok Adalat to be held on 12.05.2012.
Earlier order in respect of issuance of Production Warrant is cancelled.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Ms. Neelam Gogia Vs. Pradeep Kumar Chug C.C.No.5246/10 25.04.2012 Present: G.D. Gogia in person.
Accused in person.
These are two matters.
Accused is repeatedly seeking passover for want of counsel.
Today, only an application U/s 243 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused.
However, ld. counsel for the accused is not appearing.
Be awaited for the ld. counsel for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 At 02.55 p.m. Present: G.D. Gogia in person.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
It appears that matter was listed for defence evidence. However, accused not taken any defence till the actual date of hearing whereas he could have filed the list of witnesses or application for summoning of witnesses sufficiently before this date so that the date of hearing could have been utilized in a fruitful manner.
Today, accused has filed only an application U/s 243 Cr.P.C. praying that cheques be sent for expert opinion. Copy supplied to the complainant.
Since no other application has been filed by the accused for any other defence witness. It is made clear that no further opportunity will be given to the accused.
The matter now remains only in respect of the application filed by the accused U/s 243 Cr.P.C.
List for reply, arguments and disposal of this application on 15.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 G.D. Gogia Vs. Pradeep Kumar Chug C.C.No.1878/10 25.04.2012 Present: G.D. Gogia in person.
Accused in person.
These are two matters.
Accused is repeatedly seeking passover for want of counsel.
Today, only an application U/s 243 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused.
However, ld. counsel for the accused is not appearing.
Be awaited for the ld. counsel for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 At 02.55 p.m. Present: G.D. Gogia in person.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama.
It appears that matter was listed for defence evidence. However, accused not taken any defence till the actual date of hearing whereas he could have filed the list of witnesses or application for summoning of witnesses sufficiently before this date so that the date of hearing could have been utilized in a fruitful manner.
Today, accused has filed only an application U/s 243 Cr.P.C. praying that cheques be sent for expert opinion. Copy supplied to the complainant.
Since no other application has been filed by the accused for any other defence witness. It is made clear that no further opportunity will be given to the accused.
The matter now remains only in respect of the application filed by the accused U/s 243 Cr.P.C.
List for reply, arguments and disposal of this application on 15.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Yogesh Makker Vs. Gurmeet Singh C.C.No.380/10 25.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
A report received from PS : Patal Nagar stating that they have sent the NBW to the SSP Gangapur, Rajasthan. Process be awaited.
PS : Patel Nagar is directed to obtain the report in respect of execution of NBW from SSP, Gangapur, Rajasthan.
In the meanwhile, fresh process be issued for 30.07.2012.
Complainant may also assist the police official in execution of the warrant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6252/125.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant. This cheque is from my bank account. The cheque bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date. I had given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly replied by me. I admit that I was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in my bank account. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6252/125.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused No.1 firm through accused No.2 Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me against accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm does not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused No.1 firm. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant on behalf of accused No.1 firm. This cheque is from the bank account of accused No.1 firm. The cheque bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date on behalf of accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm had given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. Accused No.1 firm had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly replied by the accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm admits that it was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in its bank account. Accused No.1 firm wants to lead defence evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6251/125.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused No.1 firm through accused No.2 Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me against accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm does not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused No.1 firm. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant on behalf of accused No.1 firm. This cheque is from the bank account of accused No.1 firm. The cheque bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date on behalf of accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm had given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. Accused No.1 firm had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly replied by the accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm admits that it was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in its bank account. Accused No.1 firm wants to lead defence evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6251/125.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant. This cheque is from my bank account. The cheque bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date. I had given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly replied by me. I admit that I was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in my bank account. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6253/125.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me. I do not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against me. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant. This cheque is from my bank account. The cheque bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date. I had given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. I had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly replied by me. I admit that I was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in my bank account. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6253/125.04.2012 Record of the examination of Accused No.1 firm through accused No.2 Mukesh Sharma, S/o Sh. R.K. Sharma, aged about 60 years, R/o E-30, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 under section 251 and 263(g), 313 r/w Section-281(6) Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I understand the accusation explained over to me against accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm does not plead guilty. I also understand all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against accused No.1 firm. I want to say that I had given the Cheque in question to the complainant on behalf of accused No.1 firm. This cheque is from the bank account of accused No.1 firm. The cheque bears my signature. Other columns of the cheque in question has been filled in by me except the date on behalf of accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm had given this cheque in question to the complainant as Surety against the supply of goods. However, some goods were found defective and orders for further delivery were stale, therefore, delivery could not be made. Accused No.1 firm had received a legal demand notice from the complainant company and the same was accordingly replied by the accused No.1 firm. Accused No.1 firm admits that it was not having sufficient amount to honour the cheque in its bank account. Accused No.1 firm wants to lead defence evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Peush Kumar Kasera Vs. Virender Gupta C.C.No.2009/12 25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Peush Kumar Kasera, Complainant.
On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW-1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my pre- summoning evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Greenland Finance & Leasing (P) Ltd. Vs. Vinod Kumar Kaushik C.C.No.1436/10 25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Umesh 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 in respect of this cheque in question. I have received Rs.12,100/- from the accused. The complainant company is in possession of some other cheques of the accused which will be returned within 10 days. Therefore, the present complaint be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Peush Kumar Kasera Vs. Virender Gupta C.C.No.2009/12 25.04.2012 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 the accused Virender Gupta 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/25.04.2012 Vijay Yadav Vs. Sudhir Patel / Kanaujia & Anr.
C.C.No.2752/1025.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Vikramjit Saini, Ld. Counsel for Complainant.
Without oath I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that I have instructions from the complainant to withdraw the present complaint case since the matter has been amicably settled in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. The complainant has no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due. Therefore, the matter be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Yogesh Kumar Vs. Sanjay Garg C.C.No.4899/10 25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Complainant.
On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. I have received Rs.10,000/- from the accused. I have no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards him. Therefore, the matter be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Amit Gadia Vs. Vigasa Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No. 25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Amit Gadia, 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 rely upon the documents Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/7. I further say that I have also filed two other complaints against accused Vinod Sharma at the same address and envelopes containing the notice in those cases have been received back. I close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Amit Gadia Vs. Dreeshti Aircon (P) Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No. 25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Amit Gadia, 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 rely upon the documents Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/14. I close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Amit Gadia Vs. Dreeshti Aircon (P) Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No. 25.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Amit Gadia, 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 rely upon the documents Exh.CW1/1 to Exh.CW1/16. I close my evidence. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Amit Gadia Vs. Dreeshti Aircon (P) Ltd. & Anr.
Fresh case received by way of assignment. Let it be checked and registered.
C.C.No. 25.04.2012 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 the 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 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Amit Gadia Vs. Vigasa Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr.
Fresh case received by way of assignment. Let it be checked and registered.
C.C.No. 25.04.2012 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 the 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 30.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Excel Enterprises Vs. M/s Highland House Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
File taken up on an application for cancellation of NBW moved by accused No.4.
C.C.No.1994/10 & 1995/10 25.04.2012 Present: Accused No.4 with counsel.
The offence is bailable one and this is the first appearance of the accused. Therefore, accused No.4 is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
Accused furnished the bail bond. Accepted subject to his filing of necessary documents regarding soundness of the Surety.
Now the NBW be issued only against accused No.2.
Summons be also served upon accused company.
List on date fixed i.e. 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s J.B. Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anil Kalra C.C.No.2134/10 25.04.2012 Present: Clerk of the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Convict with ld. proxy counsel.
Arguments heard on the point of sentence.
Convict prayed for leniency on the ground that only for the sake of ego, the complainant has dragged him into the litigation.
Complainant himself is not present.
I have considered the submissions of the accused. A bare perusal of the file goes to show that convict has deliberately delayed the matter.
I consider that ends of justice would be met if the convict is sentenced to a simple imprisonment of six months together with a fine of Rs.76,000/-.
Out of the fine, Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation.
Convict seeks time to file an application for bail.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 At 04.10 p.m. Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Convict with proxy counsel.
Convict has filed an application U/s 389 Cr.P.C.
Convict is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
Convict, however, seeks sometime to furnish the surety and submits that he may be on personal bail till the next date.
Personal bond of the convict is accepted for two days.
List on 27.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Mohseen Qureshi Vs. Shri Munnu C.C.No.774/10 25.04.2012 Present: Convict with counsel.
Ld. Counsel argued that the convict has already fulfilled his obligation by paying the entire fine amount of Rs.50,000/- as he has deposited Rs.30,000/- which has been released to the complainant as compensation and has also deposited Rs.20,000/- with the DLSA.
Ld. Counsel submits that due to bonafide mistake, the convict deposited the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- with DLSA instead of depositing the same in the court.
He submits that he has filed a copy of receipt No.50103 dated 01.09.2011 received from DLSA.
Ld. Counsel further argued that earlier they have moved an application for withdrawal of amount before the DLSA but the same was not fruitful.
Ld. Counsel, however, argued that the DLSA is also an instrument of the state and, therefore, the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited with the DLSA may be treated as sufficient compliance in respect of order dated 03.08.2011.
Ld. Counsel further submits that convict is a government employee and he has deposited the total amount of fine i.e. Rs.50,000/-, nothing survives in the case.
For the bonafide mistake of the accused, he should not suffer.
Ahlmad is further warned to be careful in future so that he can place the files on the fixed dates.
The application is disposed of.
Let this file be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Kamal Kumar Jain Vs. Mohinder Khurana & Anr.
C.C.No.1178/10, 1194/10 & 1202/10 25.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
These are four matters.
It appears that on 19.10.2011, Official Liquidator of the accused company was directed to be called, however, no report is available in this respect.
Ahlmad shall explain.
Let the Official Liquidator of the accused company be called.
Accused to provide the details.
List on 05.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Subhash Chand Jain Vs. Mohinder Khurana & Anr.
C.C.No.1195/1025.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
These are four matters.
It appears that on 19.10.2011, Official Liquidator of the accused company was directed to be called, however, no report is available in this respect.
Ahlmad shall explain.
Let the Official Liquidator of the accused company be called.
Accused to provide the details.
List on 05.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Mckenzie Philip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Suhrit Services Pvt. Ltd.
C.C.No.5331/11, 5306/11, 5330/11, 5313/11 & 5321/11 25.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
These are five matters.
It appears that NBWs were to be issued against the accused who are stated to be now in Nepal. There is no report in this respect.
Let NBWs be issued against the accused persons through proper channel as per rules for 05.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Shyam Choula Vs. Mohd. Ashqueen C.C.No.3553/10 & 3548/10 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
These are two matters.
Complainant submits that payment of Rs.70,000/- is remaining whereas the accused submits that only Rs.30,000/- is remaining.
Even the accused has not paid any amount till date after cancellation of NBW on 27.01.2012.
Even on 10.01.2012, similar submission was made by the complainant. I consider that accused is only delaying the matter on the pretext of payment. The present files are showing the most casual approach on the part of the accused.
It appears that on earlier occasions, several opportunities were given to the accused to lead defence evidence. However, he failed to lead any such defence evidence.
Consequently, on 12.07.2011, opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed and matter was directed to be listed for final arguments.
However, thereafter, accused absented himself and further when he appeared, he made submissions for payment. However, as indicated above, accused is only delaying the matter on the pretext of payment.
In the entire facts and circumstances, no further opportunity can be given to the accused.
List for final arguments after lunch.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 At 03.35 p.m. Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Parties submit that within 10 days time they will come with a complete settlement.
Since the compounding is a matter between the parties and both the parties are willing for settlement, one more opportunity is given to the parties.
List on 08.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Rajesh Vs. Gadrab Sain C.C.No.6052/11, 6053/11, 6054/11 & 6063/11 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
These are four matters.
Both the parties seek an adjournment for want of their counsels.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
Adjourned to 04.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Vikas Nagpal Vs. M/s Radiance Multitech & Ors.
C.C.No.3701/10 & 3713/10
25.04.2012
Present: None.
These are two matters.
It appears that on the last date no one was present on behalf of the complainant.
Even today no one is present.
SHO be called in respect of clarification for execution of processes in this case against the accused.
Complainant is also not appearing.
A Notice be issued to him for 25.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Satish Sharma Vs. M/s Shanti Traders C.C.No.2630/B 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Matter is listed for final arguments. However, proxy counsel for the accused is seeking time to advance arguments for want of ld. main counsel.
Adjourned to 26.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Ms. Renu Kapoor Vs. Ms. Madhu Bala C.C.No.6567/12 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
I have heard the ld. counsel.
He has relied upon ED Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shri Shankar II (1992) BC 525 and also on AIR 1996 SC 2339 in a paragraph from the book Canon on Banking Loans.
Put up for orders on 05.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Akhilesh Dhupar C.C.No.6485/12 25.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
It appears that complainant has also filed a reply to the application of the accused moved U/s 145(2) NI Act.
I have heard both the ld. counsels on the plea raised and submissions made.
I am of the opinion that accused has made out a case for cross-examination of the complainant. The application is allowed.
List on 05.06.2012.
At request of both the parties, date is changed to 29.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s HSB Home Solutions Limited Vs. M/s Ezee Teleshopping & Ors.
C.C.No.6251/1, 6252/1 & 6253/1 25.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused No.2 with counsel.
These are three matters.
Parties submit that they have not arrived at settlement.
As such matters have to continue in its regular way.
Accused Mukesh Sharma submits that he will be representing the accused firm.
Accordingly, accusation explained over to the accused firm and individual accused.
Their Plea and Examination recorded separately.
List for defence evidence on 07.06.2012.
Accused to take all necessary steps before the next date failing which the opportunity to lead defence evidence was automatically stand closed.
Ld. Counsel for the accused seeks some more time for depositing the cost.
One more opportunity is given.
At request of the parties, date is changed to 08.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 C.C.No.5042/10 25.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Today matter was listed for defence evidence. The accused, however, filed an application U/s 145(2) NI Act. I have heard both the ld. counsels.
Primary defence taken by the accused is that blank signed cheque was given to the complainant as a security for the purpose of arranging finance of Rs.1 lac which the complainant failed to arrange.
Ld. counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer on the ground that no law requires that the whole body of the cheque must be filled in by the drawer itself.
During the arguments, ld. counsel for the accused failed to disclose anything whether accused had ever taken any legal action against the complainant for misuse of the alleged security cheque.
I consider that once the signature is admitted on cheque accused cannot escape on the pretext that other columns were not filled in by her. Accused has also not taken any legal action against the complainant for misuse of the alleged cheque.
If we allow such plea to prevail, every accused by raising a plea of security cheque can claim a right of cross-examination only for the sake of his pleasure. The concept of security is specially within the knowledge of accused and, therefore, it is for the accused to establish the same in terms of Section-106 Evidence Act. It may be noted that complainant has already established the foundation for invoking Section-106 Evidence Act on the basis of mandatory presumptions of law available U/s 118 and Section-139 NI Act which even includes the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. (see the judgment of three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa vs Sri Mohan decided on 7 May, 2010 so far as the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability).
In the present case, accused has delayed the matter to the fullest extent and again chose to delay the matter by filing this application when the matter is listed for defence evidence. Such practice cannot be encouraged.
The application is dismissed.
However, considering the fact that the matter attracts criminal liability, one more opportunity is given to the accused to establish her particular defence or she has to take all necessary steps within 20 days failing which the opportunity shall automatically stand closed.
List on 05.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Vintage Credit & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder Kumar C.C.No.4689/10 25.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Process issued U/s 83 Cr.P.C. received back with a report no movable or immovable property in the name of accused.
It appears that proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C. has already been completed.
The affidavit of the complainant can be read in evidence whenever the accused is apprehended. As such there is no necessity to proceed U/s 82 Cr.P.C.
Concerned SHOI is directed to register an FIR U/s 174A IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to concerned SHO for compliance.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Jitender Singh Vs. Gaurav C.C.No.2600/10 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he has received relevant documents from the complainant.
An exemption application has been filed by the ld. counsel on behalf of the accused on the ground that a family member of the accused has expired yesterday and accused has gone to Faridabad.
The exemption is only allowed subject to furnishing of sufficient proof of attending cremation.
Adjourned to 08.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Ranendra Mohan Dutt Vs. Arun Srivastava C.C.No.4466/10 25.04.2012 Present: None.
Earlier notice still not received back.
Office has not issued fresh notice whereas specific direction was given to issue the notice within three days.
There is no explanation from the Ahlmad in this respect.
Let Ahlmad to explain his cause.
Notice to complainant be also issued for 05.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. Baljeet Singh C.C.No.6228/11 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Fresh summons not received back.
Be awaited.
In the meantime, summons be issued afresh through all available modes.
List on 04.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Pratap Singh Vs. Desh Raj Singh C.C.No.6558/12 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
There is no report in respect of compliance of the previous order.
Whereas ld. counsel submits that he has already filed necessary process fee.
Let previous order be complied with for 04.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s National Hardwares Vs. M/s Ishan Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.3434/10
25.04.2012
Present: None.
Bailable Warrant received back unexecuted.
Let fresh Bailable Warrant be issued.
Ahlmad to also make his report in terms of the last order for which only one opportunity is given to the Ahlmad.
List on 04.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s DLF Cement Ltd. Vs. M/s Aditya Construction Co. & Anr.
C.C.No.3559/10
25.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Last process not received back.
A report be called from the concerned SHO.
Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be also issued afresh to be executable on or before 07.05.2012 for 08.06.2012.
Process be also published at the cost of complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Lamba Finance Company Vs. Kaushal Kapoor C.C.No.981/10 25.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
At request of the parties, matter be sent to Mediation Cell for 27.04.2012.
Regular date of hearing is 03.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Industrial Valves & Components Vs. M/s Shankar Engineers C.C.No.1286/10 25.04.2012 Present: None.
A Notice for the last date i.e. 14.01.2012 has been received with a report Yeh dukan ab pata nahi kahan par gai.
No one is appearing on behalf of the complainant for the last several dates.
It appears that complainant is not interested in prosecuting the present case otherwise it would have provided its address or would have diligently followed his case.
State should not be burdened with such private litigations.
Complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Dinesh Kumar Biyani Vs. Broadway Machines Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.6303/1125.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
An exemption application has been filed on the ground that complainant is in Kolkata to attend wedding ceremonies of his sisters son.
As per Nazarat Branch summons has not been received back from the out of station court.
Let fresh summons be issued through all available modes for 05.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Dinesh Kumar Biyani Vs. Associated Machinery Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.6304/1125.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
An exemption application has been filed on the ground that complainant is in Kolkata to attend wedding ceremonies of his sisters son.
As per Nazarat Branch summons has not been received back from the out of station court.
Let fresh summons be issued through all available modes for 05.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 M/s Canadian Speciality Vinyls Vs. Rajesh Thakur C.C.No.6202/1 25.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Summons received back with a report Ulte seedhe number.
Summons sent by speed post received back with a report no such person.
Fresh summons be issued if complainant provides fresh address of the accused.
List on 05.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 Brijesh Kumar Vs. Mukesh Kumar C.C.No.4736/10 25.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
It appears that on 24.08.2011, opportunity was given to the accused to lead defence evidence, however, till date accused has not taken any steps in this respect.
Consequently, the opportunity to lead defence evidence is closed.
List for final arguments on 03.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 C.C.No.2597/1 25.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Constable Mukesh is present and submitted that he had executed the process on 06.02.2012.
It appears that the date of hearing was 22.02.2012 and, therefore, no mandatory 30 days period was provided by the police official.
An explanation in this respect be called from the concerned SHO within five days.
List on 02.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 C.C.No.2077/10 25.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused is down with Viral Fever.
The application is completely frivolous being without any supporting proof or details.
Even the ld. main counsel for the accused is not available.
As such the exemption cannot be allowed.
The exemption is, therefore, dismissed.
Complainant submits that he is ready for cross-examination, therefore, application of the accused moved U/s 145(2) NI Act is allowed.
Adjourned for cross-examination on 05.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012 C.C.No.2680/10 25.04.2012 Present: None.
Summons unserved. However, the same is in other language.
Adjourned for appearance of complainant so that he can assist.
List on 04.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/25.04.2012