Delhi District Court
Rigid Global (India) vs M/S Moksh Event on 4 April, 2013
C.C. No. 4649 /1/09
04.04.2013
Present: AR of the complainant alongwith counsel.
Accused Surender Mohan Singh is not present.
Notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C issued against the surety of the accused
received unexexuted with the report that no such person resides at the given
address.
HC Bhola Prasad who was charged with the execution of process
under section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Surender Mohan Singh is present. He
is examined and discharged. In the light of the statement made by Head
Constable Bhola Prasad and his report Ex. A received on earlier occasion I am
satisfied that on 6.11.2012 the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the
accused was duly executed. As per record despite execution of process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. against him the accused did not appear before the court
although by way of the process executed against him.
In these circumstances accused Surender Mohan is declared as
proclaimed offender.
File be consigned to record room. The same be put up as and
when accused is arrested.
A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
as well as SHO, police station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and they are directed
to make all efforts to apprehend accused Surender Mohan Singh and to produce
him before this court.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 04.04.2013
C.C. No. 4649 /1/09
4.4.2013
Statement of HC Bhola Prasad, No. 13/SD, PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi.
On SA.
On 6.11.2012 I had executed process under section 82 Cr.P.C.
against accused Surender Mohan Singh. I had executed the process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. against the said accused by affixing a copy of the same at the
house of the accused and by affixing another copy at the notice board of the
court. I had also executed the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the said
accused by way of public announcement near his house. My report is Ex. A. It
bears my signature at point 'X'.
RO & AC (GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 2922 /1/09
4.4.2013
Statement of HC Ram Dhari, No. 157/SE, CPS Pool, CR Park, New Delhi.
On SA.
On 28.11.2012 I had executed process under section 82 Cr.P.C.
against accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh. I had executed the process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. against the said accused by affixing a copy of the same at the
house of the accused and by affixing another copy at the notice board of the
court. I had also executed the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the said
accused by way of public announcement near his house. My report is Ex. A. It
bears my signature at point 'X'.
RO & AC (GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No.5217 /1/09
04.04.2013
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused not present.
For the last two dates none has appeared on behalf of the accused.
However, in the interest of justice I am not passing any adverse order against
the complainant for his absence as the case is fixed for recording statement of
the process server who has executed the process u/s 82 CrPC against the
accused.
HC Rajbir Singh who has executed the process u/s 82 CrPC
against the accused is not present despite service. A written request has been
received from him contending that he has gone out of station in connection with
his duty. Request is allowed.
Issue fresh court notice to the process server concerned for
recording his statement in terms of the previous order for 17.5.2013.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 04.04.2013
C.C. No. 5382/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused not present.
Process issued against the accused under section 82 Cr.P.C.
received back after execution. Despite service of the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. the
accused has not appeared. In these circumstances issue court notice to the
process server concerned for recording his statement regarding the process
executed by him against the accused on 2.5.2013.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 2918 /1/09
4.4.2013
Statement of HC Raj Singh, No. 1923/SE, PS Summons Cell, CR Park, New
Delhi.
On SA.
On 8.9.2012 I had executed process under section 82 Cr.P.C.
against accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh. I had executed the process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. against the said accused by affixing a copy of the same at the
house of the accused and by affixing another copy at the notice board of the
court. I had also executed the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the said
accused by way of public announcement near his house. My report is Ex. A. It
bears my signature at point 'X'.
RO & AC (GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 4649 /1/09
04.04.2013
Present: AR of the complainant alongwith counsel.
Accused Surender Mohan Singh is not present.
Notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C issued against the surety of the accused
received unexexuted with the report that no such person resides at the given
address.
HC Bhola Prasad who was charged with the execution of process
under section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Surender Mohan Singh is present. He
is examined and discharged. In the light of the statement made by Head
Constable Bhola Prasad and his report Ex. A received on earlier occasion I am
satisfied that on 6.11.2012 the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the
accused was duly executed. As per record despite execution of process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. against him the accused did not appear before the court
although by way of the process executed against him.
In these circumstances accused Surender Mohan is declared as
proclaimed offender.
File be consigned to record room. The same be put up as and
when accused is arrested.
A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
as well as SHO, police station Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and they are directed
to make all efforts to apprehend accused Surender Mohan Singh and to produce
him before this court.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 04.04.2013
C.C. No. 2922 /1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh is not present.
HC Ram Dhari who was charged with the execution of process
under section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh is present. He
is examined and discharged. In the light of the statement made by Head
Constable Ram Dhari and his report Ex. A received on earlier occasion I am
satisfied that on 28.11.2012 the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the
accused was duly executed. As per record despite execution of process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. against him the accused did not appear before the court
although by way of the process executed against him.
In these circumstances accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh is declared
as proclaimed offender.
File be consigned to record room. The same be put up as and
when accused is arrested.
A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
as well as SHO, police station G.K.I, New Delhi and they are directed to make
all efforts to apprehend accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh and to produce him
before this court.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 04.04.2013
C.C. No. 2918 /1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh is not present.
HC Raj Singh who was charged with the execution of process
under section 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh is present. He
is examined and discharged. In the light of the statement made by Head
Constable Raj Singh and his report Ex. A received on earlier occasion I am
satisfied that on 8.9.2012 the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. against the
accused was duly executed. As per record despite execution of process under
section 82 Cr.P.C. against him the accused did not appear before the court
although by way of the process executed against him.
In these circumstances accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh is declared
as proclaimed offender.
File be consigned to record room. The same be put up as and
when accused is arrested.
A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi
as well as SHO, police station G.K.I, New Delhi and they are directed to make
all efforts to apprehend accused Surjeet Dastidar Ghosh and to produce him
before this court.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 04.04.2013
C.C. No. 5528/1/09
04.04.2013
CW1 Sh. Rahul Raghav s/o Sh Suresh Kumar Ragav, aged 29 years,
occupation:AR of the complainant, r/o Plot no. 338, Sector2, Vaishali,
Ghaziabad, UP.
I tender my affidavit Ex C1 alongwith documents Ex. CW1/1 to Ex
CW1/5 as detailed in my affidavit towards my examination in chief. The affidavit has
been signed and verified by me at points A and B respectively. (Exhibition of
document Ex. CW1/2 is objected to by learned counsel for the accused as a mode of
proof).
xxxxxxby Mr. Utkarsh, Advocate for the accused alongwith accused.
I joined the complainant company as a Marketing Manager in
April, 2012. It is correct that anything happened in our company prior to April
2012 I do not have any personal knowledge of the same. I do not know anything
about K. & A. Securities. I cannot say whether the K&A Securities is the sister
concern of the complainant company.
The complainant is NBFC (nonbanking financial company) and
not in share market. Demat account and PAN number is mandatory for trading
in primary/secondary market. Before providing any fund to any customer we
must require a guarantee (given by third party), post dated cheques, past
records, i.e. transaction in primary or secondary market, bank statement. We
provide the finances only to trade in primary and secondary market. It is correct
that if a person is not engaged in trading in primary or secondary market we do
not provide any fund to that person.
2
I cannot say if Ex. CW1/2 is a computer generated paper and does
not found mention the details (breakup wise)in relation to the fundings provided
by us to the accused. (Vol. This will be described only by our accounts section.)
It is correct that I have not mentioned in my complaint the facts mentioned at
para 3,6 and 8 of the affidavit Ex. C1. It is wrong to suggest that I have not
mentioned these facts in my complaint as we have never funded to the accused
or that accused has never opened an account with our company. Whenever any
person opens account with our company we used to send proper welcome letter
to such person via email and by post. I cannot say if we send periodical
statements of the accounts of our customers. (Vol. Person from the accounts
department can tell this fact.) It is correct that I have not filed any document
whatsoever qua the opening of account of the accused in our company. The
reason for sending the legal notice Ex. CW1/4 by us through our lawyer is
because the accused had opened an account in our company and we funded him
time to time and thereafter the cheque in question was issued by the accused in
order to discharge this very liability and the said cheque was dishonoured. It is
wrong to suggest that the accused was an employee in K&A Securities which is
a sister concern of the complainant company or that that Directors of the
complainant company and K & A Securities are common or that the said K&A
Securities works in primary and secondary market and our company used to
provide funds to the customers registered in K& A Securities Pvt. Ltd. It is
further wrong to suggest that being an employee of K & A securities some
funds were transferred by the company in the account of the accused for
business purposes which includes infrastructures, branch expansion and
development in all over Uttrakhand and in lieu of that the accused has issued
3
this cheque as a blank one for security purposes. It is further wrong to suggest
that due to irregularities/noncompliance of various financial laws found from
the management side the accused offered his resignation and the same was duly
accepted by Mr. Vinjay Gupta, Director, K&A Securities or that because of this
resignation the accused has been falsely implicated in this case or that accused
has never trade in primary or secondary market and never required any fund
from the complainant company. It is further wrong to suggest that complaint in
this regard filed by the accused against the complainant company before various
authorities including SEBI, RBI, Enforcement Directorate, concerned police
stations and C.M. Office, Dehradun etc. It is further wrong to suggest that
accused has never given any single margin cheque to the complainant company.
It is further wrong to suggest that because of this my complaint is completely
silent on the issues of account opening, third party guarantor, periodical
statements of account, any transaction done by the accused in primary or
secondary market etc. etc. It is further wrong to suggest that I deposing falsely
at the instance of the my company.
RO&AC (GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 5528/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused on bail with counsel.
CW1 examined and discharged. No other CW is present.
At the request of counsel for the complainant case is adjourned to
16.5.2013 for entire CE. Steps for summoning the witnesses be taken within
one week.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 5682/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
AR of the complainant is not present. On application AR of the
complainant is exempted from personal appearance for today only.
Accused on bail with counsel.
No witness of the complainant is present and request for
adjournment is made without any ground contending that the witness of the
complainant is out of India. Request is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
accused stating that these are the delaying tactics on the part of the complainant.
It is also contended by counsel for the accused that the accused is being
harassed unnecessarily and this is a false complaint.
In view of the request made by proxy counsel for the complainant
and the submissions made by counsel for the accused and in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice one last and final
opportunity is granted to the complainant for CE. Put up on 30.5.2013 for CE. It
is further made clear that in case the complainant fail to lead CE on next date of
hearing the CE shall be closed automatically.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 4513/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Complainant in person with counsel.
Accused is not present.
Counsel for the accused.
Application for exemption of the accused from personal
appearance is made on behalf of the accused on the ground that the accused has
gone to official tour. Application is opposed by counsel for the complainant. In
the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any ground to allow the
application and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Issue NBW against the
accused and notice u/s 446 CrPC to his surety for 10.5.2013.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.S. No. 13/2013
04.04.2013
Present: Plaintiff in person with counsel.
Counsel for defendant no. 1.
Counsel for defendant no. 2.
None for defendant no. 3.
An application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of
defendant no. 1. Copy supplied to the plaintiff. Memo of appearance filed by
counsel for the defendant no. 2. Status report also filed by counsel for the
defendant no. 2 bringing to the notice that unauthorized construction of the
first floor is being made by the defendant no. 1 and request for sometime for
filing action taken report.
Put up for WS by defendants and reply, if any, to the application
of the defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff on 9.5.2013.
In view of the status report filed by the defendant no. 2, defendant
no. 1 is restrained from making any unauthorized construction in the suit
property till the next date of hearing.
Action taken report be filed by the defendant no. 2 and 3 on the
next date of hearing.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 813/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Arguments on the application filed by the accused under section
311 Cr.P.C heard and gone through the record. The request of the accused
under section 145 Cr.PC filed for crossexamination of the witness was
dismissed and it appears that this application is filed to over come that order
which cannot be permitted. This application is, therefore, dismissed. In the
interest of justice no cost is imposed.
Learned counsel for the accused seeks time to address arguments
submitting that she is not read with the arguments today. Request is vehemently
opposed by counsel for the complainant stating that these are the delaying
tactics on the part of the accused. In the interest of justice one last and final
opportunity is given to the accused to address arguments on the next date of
hearing failing which the matter shall be disposed of on merits, as per law.
Put up on 10.5.2013 for arguments.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 3110/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Arguments on the application filed by the accused under section
311 Cr.P.C heard and gone through the record. The request of the accused
under section 145 Cr.PC filed for crossexamination of the witness was
dismissed and it appears that this application is filed to over come that order
which cannot be permitted. This application is, therefore, dismissed. In the
interest of justice no cost is imposed.
Learned counsel for the accused seeks time to address arguments
submitting that she is not read with the arguments today. Request is vehemently
opposed by counsel for the complainant stating that these are the delaying
tactics on the part of the accused. In the interest of justice one last and final
opportunity is given to the accused to address arguments on the next date of
hearing failing which the matter shall be disposed of on merits, as per law.
Put up on 10.5.2013 for arguments.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 1302/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Arguments on the application filed by the accused under section
311 Cr.P.C heard and gone through the record. The request of the accused
under section 145 Cr.PC filed for crossexamination of the witness was
dismissed and it appears that this application is filed to over come that order
which cannot be permitted. This application is, therefore, dismissed. In the
interest of justice no cost is imposed.
Learned counsel for the accused seeks time to address arguments
submitting that she is not read with the arguments today. Request is vehemently
opposed by counsel for the complainant stating that these are the delaying
tactics on the part of the accused. In the interest of justice one last and final
opportunity is given to the accused to address arguments on the next date of
hearing failing which the matter shall be disposed of on merits, as per law.
Put up on 10.5.2013 for arguments.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 813/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused on bail with counsel.
Arguments on the application filed by the accused under section
311 Cr.P.C heard and gone through the record. The request of the accused
under section 145 Cr.PC filed for crossexamination of the witness was
dismissed and it appears that this application is filed to over come that order
which cannot be permitted. This application is, therefore, dismissed. In the
interest of justice no cost is imposed.
Learned counsel for the accused seeks time to address arguments
submitting that she is not read with the arguments today. Request is vehemently
opposed by counsel for the complainant stating that these are the delaying
tactics on the part of the accused. In the interest of justice one last and final
opportunity is given to the accused to address arguments on the next date of
hearing failing which the matter shall be disposed of on merits, as per law.
Put up on 10.5.2013 for arguments.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
DR26/12
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the petitioner/tenant.
Heard. Record perused. Issue fresh notice of the application u/s 27
of the DRC act to the respondent, on filing PF etc within one week in terms of
order dated 19.12.2012, returnable on 18.5.2013.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 1235/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: Complainant in person.
Office report seen. Steps not taken for getting issued the process
against the accused in compliance of the previous order. As observed the
complainant has failed to file correct address of the accused despite ample
opportunities granted to him. No useful purpose shall be served by adjourning
the case for service of the accused on the old address. It is submitted by the
complainant that fresh address of the accused is not traceable. In these
circumstances, the file is consigned sine die with liberty to the complainant to
get the order revived as and when fresh address of the accused is traced and
filed on record as per law.
File be sent to records.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
E22/08
04.04.2013
Present: Mr. Ishant Khanna, Advocate proxy for counsel for the petitioner.
Respondents no. 2, 6 and 8 are exparte.
None for respondents no. 4 and 7.
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 5.
Mr. Kumar has submitted that earlier he was counsel for
Respondent no. 3 who has now expired. He undertakes to file on record the
death certificate of respondent no. 3 on the next date of hearing.
In view of the previous order the case is fixed for RE for today but
as apparent from the records and in view of the submissions an application
under order 9 rule 7 CPC filed by the respondent no. 4 is pending for
consideration and not disposed off. Therefore, the said application is disposed
off to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.
An application under section 151 CPC filed today by the
respondents no.1, 3 and 5 contending that respondent no. 3 has expired and
requested to fix the case for arguments on the application under Order IX rule 9
CPC filed by the petitioner.
In view of the above mentioned contentions, Mr. Dinesh Kumar,
learned advocate is directed to file on record the documents in support of his
contentions that respondent no. 3 has expired. Let the relevant record be filed
on the next date of hearing and thereafter, the application under Order IX rule 9
CPC r/w section 5 of Limitation Act of the petitioner shall be disposed off.
Put up on 23.5.2013 for filing death certificate of respondent no. 3
and for arguments on the pending application.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
DR7/13
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the petitioner.
Notice of the application under section 27 of the DRC Act sent to
the respondent by registered AD post received back after service. None has
appeared on behalf of the respondent since morning despite repeated calls. It is
2.30 PM. Fourth call.
Neither the respondent has appeared nor filed objections after
service of the application under section 27 of the DRC Act sent through post, it
appears that the respondent has nothing to say. Accordingly, the application
under section 27 of the DRC Act is allowed and the respondent is at liberty to
withdraw the rent without his prejudice to his rights and contentions. File be
consigned to RR.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
C.C. No. 4435/1/09
04.04.2013
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused on bail with counsel Ms. Nirmala, Advocate.
Today the case is fixed for evidence of the complainant. No CW is
present. Be awaited till 2.00 PM.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
2.00 PM
Present: Mr. Bhawani Shankar, Advocate, proxy for Sh. Joginder
Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Accused on bail with counsel Ms. Nirmala, Advocate.
It is 2.15 PM, fourth call since morning. Matter is passed over
again and again since morning but none appeared on behalf of the complainant.
The case is fixed for CE. Even at this stage, no witness is present and no
explanation is furnished for nonappearance of the witness or the complainant.
Cost imposed upon the complainant in view of the previous order has also not
been paid. Learned proxy counsel appearing for the counsel for the complainant
submits that the main counsel is not available due to problem in lungs or
intestines and the name of the hospital is not known. He submits that the main
counsel himself shall produce the documents of his illness and does not know
the details of illness or hospital. When the proxy counsel has been asked as to
where is the witness and the complainant, he became furious and he straight
away replied after raising his voice that the Court can pass any order after
recording his submissions. Again, he submits that he is submitting so as the
learned counsel for the accused is not cooperating with him and she cannot
oppose his request. He does not know why the witness has not come. In my
view, learned proxy counsel has no authority to appear before this court also.
Such conduct of the complainant is uncalled for and not desirable not it is
tolerable. On the one hand none appeared for the complainant since morning
nor due diligence was shown for pursuing the matter despite repeated and
ample opportunities and on the other hand such type of submissions are made
which cannot be considered at all. It is submitted by the accused that he is
harassed without any ground and the complainant failed to lead evidence
despite opportunity and not complied the order of this court
In view of the previous order sheets, facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the submissions and as no witness of the complainant is
present or summoned for today, nor the previous cost is paid by the
complainant, I find no ground to grant any further opportunity to the
complainant for CE. Even the explanation for nonappearance of the AR of the
complainant is not explained or furnished. CE is, therefore, closed.
Heard. Record perused. As there is no incriminating evidence
against the accused as no complainant witness is examined on behalf of the
complainant, the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused is
dispensed with. No defence is lead by the accused contending that no
incriminating material is on record against him.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court the accused
is acquitted of the allegations under section 138 of N.I. Act. His bond and bail
bond shall remain in force for next six months.
File be consigned to RR.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
Mis. Application No._________
CC No. 2184/1/09
Vinod Kumar Gupta v Holographic Tape International Ltd.
04.04.2013
Present: Mr. Dalminder Singh Bagga, father and special attorney of Ms.
Gurmeet Kaur, who has stood surety for the accused in this case.
Original file of CC No. 2184/1/09 received from the record room.
Record perused. Ms. Gurmeet Kaur stood surety of accused Smt. Lakshmi Kaur
w/o Dalminder Singh and her bond was accepted on 15.3.2007. Vide order
dated 16.10.2012 of my learned predecessor the case against accused Smt.
Lakshmi Kaur and her co accused was disposed off as
compromised/compounded.
Present application for return of the FDR by Ms. Gurmeet Kaur
has been filed through her father and SPA Mr. Dalminder Singh Bagga. It is
mentioned that Mr. Dalminder Singh Bagga was also one of the accused in this
case. Since the case against accused Smt. Lakshmi Kaur has been disposed off
as compromised/compounded, the original FDR be returned to the SPA of the
surety Ms Gurmeet Kaur against proper receipt and identification. Copy of the
FDR be kept on record and thereafter the original file be sent back to the record
room.
(GORAKH NATH PANDEY)
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
New Delhi: 4.4.2013
In the Court of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey: Senior Civil JudgecumRent
Controller of New Delhi District at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
C. C No. 4435/1/09
Unique ID No. 02403R0438392006
In the matter of:
Rigid Global (India)
Through attorney Sh. Vinod Prakash Dhar,
Administrative Officer at
843/1, 1st Floor, Ghitorni, M.G. Road,
New Delhi30 .................... Complainant
VERSUS
M/s Moksh Event
Through its proprietor
Sh Kapil Aggarwal
J6, Lajpat NagarIII
New Delhi .................... Accused
Date of Institution : 14.08.2006
Date of Arguments: 04.04.2013
Date of Judgment : 04.04.2013
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138/142 OF THE NEGOTIABLE
INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881.
JUDGMENT :
This is a complaint under section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( hereinafter called the Act) made by the complainant company through AR Mr. Vinod Prakash Dhar against the accused, a proprietorship concern of Mr Kapil Aggarwal. It is stated that on 29.4.2006 the accused placed an order for some office furniture on telephone which was delivered by the complainant to the accused on 15.5.2006 vide invoice no. 6/295 and on 16.5.2006 vide invoice no. 6/296. The complainant firm also done some set up/job work in respect of the office furniture in the office of the accused firm and the accused had given the completion certificate to the complainant dated 9.6.2006; that the accused had to pay Rs. 76,250/; that the accused issued cheque no. 162167 dated 10.06.2006 for Rs.75,000/ drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd, New Friends Colony Branch, Plot No. 13, Community Centre, New Delhi57 to the complainant; that the complainant presented the said cheque for encashment with his banker, i.e. UTI Bank, New Delhi but the said cheque was received as dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient fund" with memo dated 14.6.2006; that thereafter legal notice was sent to the accused on 27.6.2006 through currier as well as registered AD post; that the accused received the notice sent through currier but refused to receive the registered AD notice; that the accused did not pay the cheque amount in spite of service of the legal notice dated 27.6.2006. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused be summoned, tried and punished for having committed offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of the cheque in question. 2 The complaint was made on 14.08.2006. After examination of the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by way of an affidavit and having considered the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed alongwith the same my learned predecessor had passed an order under section 204 of Cr.P.C. whereby the accused was summoned to face accusation under section 138 of the Act in respect of cheque in question.
3 In pursuance of the process issued by the court accused Kapil Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s Moksh Event appeared and he was admitted to bail. Subsequently, on 3.1.2013 a notice of accusation under section 251 of Cr.P.C. was framed whereby the accused charged with the commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Act in respect of cheque in question. The notice of accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he did not plead guilty and submitted that he had defence to make. 4 The matter was listed for evidence of the complainant on 15.2.2013. On 15.2.2013 no CW was present. Though there was no sufficient cause for absence of the witness yet one more opportunity was granted by my learned predecessor to the complainant to conclude CE on 4.4.4013. 5 As neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared despite repeated calls since morning and the complainant failed to lead evidence despite opportunity, the CE was closed.
6 Heard. Record perused. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused as no complainant witness is examined on behalf of the complainant, the examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused is dispensed with. No defence is lead by the accused contending that no incriminating material is on record against him. The complainant has failed to prove all the allegations levelled against the accused. 7 In view of the above discussion the accused is acquitted of the allegations under section 138 of N.I. Act. His bond and bail bond shall remain in force for next six months.
File be consigned to RR.
Announced in the open court (GORAKH NATH PANDEY) on
this 4 day of April, 2013 Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller
th
New Delhi