Delhi District Court
B.R. Sethi vs . M/S Paul & Company & Anr. on 15 February, 2012
B.R. Sethi Vs. M/s Paul & Company & Anr. C.C.No.6151/11 15.02.2012
Record of the examination of Accused Narender Paul Kalra, S/o Late Sh. Harbans Singh, aged about 66 years, R/o B-100, Sector-41, Noida under section 251, 263(g) and 313 r.w. 281 Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I, the above named accused had given the Cheques in question to the complainant. These cheques are from my bank account. The cheques bear my signatures. However, amount columns are filled in by my son. Date and Pay columns are not filled in by me. I had given the cheques in question to the complainant towards the supply of goods. I had received a legal demand notice. The same was not replied. Cheque returning memos Exh.CW1/3 and Exh.CW1/5 are not disputed. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Aslam Vs. Sushil Jain C.C.No.2460/10 15.02.2012 Record of the examination of Accused Sushil Jain, S/o Shri Chand Jain, aged about 42 years, R/o H.No.207/2 - BC, Street No.9, Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005 under section 251, 263(g) and 313 r.w. 281 Cr.P.C.
Without oath.
I, the above named accused had given the Cheque in question to the complainant. The cheque is from my bank account. The cheque bears my signature. However, other columns are not filled in by me. I had given the cheque in question to the complainant as security against the job work. I had not received any legal demand notice from the complainant. However, name and addresses appearing on the legal demand notice and Registered Envelope and Courier Envelope are correct and are mine. Cheque returning memo Exh.CW1/D is disputed and I cannot say about insufficiency of funds in my bank account. The complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. The legal demand notice has been prepared to serve the averments made in the complaint and has been manipulated. No notice of the dated 05.01.2010, even as per the allegation made in the complaint, was sent to the accused. I want to lead defence evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Taureg Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Tamarkan C.C.No.6432/11 15.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Anoop Gupta, AR of the complainant company.
On S.A. I, the above named AR of the 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 no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains towards the accused.
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Selina Publishers Vs. M/s Book Point & Anr.
C.C.No.6023/1115.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Dharampal, Special Power of Attorney of the complainant firm.
On S.A. I, the above named Power of Attorney of the complainant firm do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused firm in full and final settlement in the present complaint case. Complainant firm as no further grievance against the accused firm and nothing remains towards the accused firm.
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/15.02.2012 Kapil Kumar Tayal Vs. M/s Sanjay Steel Tube Co. & Ors.
C.C.No.2529/10
15.02.2012
Present: G.S. Tayal with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are four connected matters.
Still parties have not reduced their terms of settlement in writing.
One more opportunity is given. It is, however, made clear that if on the next date parties do not complete their settlement process, matter will continue in its regular way on daily basis.
List on 28.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Devender Kumar Tayal Vs. M/s Sanjay Steel Tube Co. & Ors.
C.C.No.2556/10
15.02.2012
Present: G.S. Tayal with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are four connected matters.
Still parties have not reduced their terms of settlement in writing.
One more opportunity is given. It is, however, made clear that if on the next date parties do not complete their settlement process, matter will continue in its regular way on daily basis.
List on 28.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 G.S. Tayal Vs. M/s Sanjay Steel Tube Co. & Ors.
C.C.No.2555/10
15.02.2012
Present: G.S. Tayal with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are four connected matters.
Still parties have not reduced their terms of settlement in writing.
One more opportunity is given. It is, however, made clear that if on the next date parties do not complete their settlement process, matter will continue in its regular way on daily basis.
List on 28.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Munni Tayal Vs. M/s Sanjay Steel Tube Co. & Ors.
C.C.No.2554/10
15.02.2012
Present: G.S. Tayal with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are four connected matters.
Still parties have not reduced their terms of settlement in writing.
One more opportunity is given. It is, however, made clear that if on the next date parties do not complete their settlement process, matter will continue in its regular way on daily basis.
List on 28.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 B.R. Sethi Vs. M/s Paul & Company & Anr.
C.C.No.6151/1115.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsel.
Accused admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. Accused furnished the same. Accepted.
Accusation explained over to the accused. His Plea and Examination recorded separately.
List for defence evidence.
Notice issued to the concerned Doctor received back with a report kahin gai huie hai.
It appears that this Doctor is deliberately avoiding the notice.
A Notice be issued to this Doctor through the concerned SHO.
List on 31.03.2012.
At request of ld. counsel for the complainant, date is changed to 04.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Taureg Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradeep Tamarkan C.C.No.6432/11 15.02.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR of the complainant recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Accused is acquitted of the charges.
Bail bond and Surety bond be discharged, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Lata Wadhwani Vs. Bahadur Singh Kohli C.C.No.4823/10 15.02.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
Process Server Constable Mahender is present.
No report has been filed by the SHO despite service of notice.
Previous Ahlmad Mohit is also present. He submits that regular process was given dasti to the complainant.
Complainant submits that he had taken the process from the office and made publication in the newspaper.
Head Constable Uday Bhan, Incharge-5-B is present and submits that they have not received any such process U/s 82 Cr.P.C.
It appears that fresh process has already been executed by constable Mahender.
He submits that complete address of the accused was not available on the process.
AR of the complainant submits that he will assist the police officials.
Let fresh Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued for 10.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M.L. Rao Vs. M/s Bells Hardware Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.375/10
15.02.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Complainant has not provided any details about Joy Gulati.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant, however, submits that complainant wants to withdraw the case in respect of Joy Gulati.
Separate statement of complainant recorded in this respect.
Accused No.2 Joy Gulati stands deleted from the array of the accused.
Accused company has not appointed any AR U/s 305 Cr.P.C. till date.
Let summons be issued to the accused company through its MD.
List on 21.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M.L. Rao Vs. M/s Bells Hardware Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.375/1015.02.2012 Statement of Mr. M.L. Rao, complainant.
On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby state that I do not want to pursue the present complaint case against accused No.2 Joy Gulati. Accused No.2 Joy Gulati be allowed to be deleted from the array of the accused.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s N.K. Handloom Vs. M/s Gauri Textile C.C.No.351/10 15.02.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Process issued U/s 82 Cr.P.C. received back with a report that the same has been published in Rajasthan Patrika and Times of India. However, there is no report in respect of regular process.
The present case is private complaint. Complainant was directed to take all necessary steps. In private complaint cases, publication cannot be made at the expenses of State.
The complainant to deposit the publication cost with the police department within 10 days.
Acknowledgment to be filed in this court by the police officials.
Since there is no report in respect of regular process, let a report be called from the concerned PS. Fresh process be also issued for 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Jage Ram Vs. Rajinder Singh C.C.No.2540/10 15.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused paid the cost to the complainant as imposed by the Ld. Revisional Court.
Complainant cross-examined. Discharged.
Put up for defence evidence on 27.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Nand Lal Dogra Vs. Deepak Saini C.C.No.5939/11 15.02.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
Accused paid Rs.5,000/- as first installment to the complainant.
There is, however, no report in respect of issuance of Warrant of Attachment against the accused for recovery of bond amount.
Let the same be issued for the next date.
List on 15.03.2012 for further installment.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Paramjeet Singh Vs. Arun Sharma C.C.No.3173/10 15.02.2012 Present: None.
As per report of the Civil Nazir, process has not been received from the out of station court.
Even fresh process has not been received. Be awaited.
Previous order be complied with afresh for 12.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Parveen Jindal Vs. Ms. D.V.V.S.L. Vani C.C.No.4595/10 15.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
As per report of the Civil Nazir, process has not been received from the out of station court.
Even fresh process has not been received. Be awaited.
Previous order be complied with afresh for 13.07.2012.
At request of ld. counsel, date is changed to 09.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. Om Prakash C.C.No.4338/10 15.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Process issued U/s 82 Cr.P.C. received back.
Proclamation has also been published in newspaper Veer Arjun.
It appears that bailable warrant issued against the accused for 03.12.2008 was duly executed upon him which is available on record. Despite the undertaking given in Bail bond and Surety bond executed before the police official, accused failed to appear on the date fixed i.e. 03.12.2008.
Even proclamation has been published against the accused. Since accused is present, there is no necessity to continue any further with the proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C.
However, accused does not have any explanation about his non appearance despite execution of bonds.
The accused be taken into custody and be produced on 27.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Rajinder Sharma Vs. Narinder Paul C.C.No.6287/11 15.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
She submits that accused has paid the first installment.
List for second installment on 14.03.2012 at request of ld. counsel for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Bansal Trading Company Vs. M/s Radiant Packaging & Anr.
C.C.No.6540/1215.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Ravi, Special Power of Attorney of the Complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named Special Attorney of the complainant company do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Manoj Bansal C.C.No.6575/12 15.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Pradeep Kumar, 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/15.02.2012 M/s Bansal Trading Company Vs. M/s Sunder Chemicals & Anr.
C.C.No.6539/1215.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Ravi, Special Power of Attorney of the Complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named Special Attorney of the complainant company do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 S.R. Bodwal Vs. Bikram Singh Gill & Ors.
C.C.No.1022/1015.02.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused Bikram Singh Gill with counsel.
Still parties have not settled the matter.
Complainant is seeking time for want of his counsel.
Complainant submits that he will return the amount received from the accused in this month itself.
In such circumstances, settlement is not possible.
It appears that the complaint has been filed with an application for Condonation of Delay and till date.
Let the matter be listed for arguments and disposal of this application on 13.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Shiv Shanker Vs. Ms. Asha C.C.No.2947/10 15.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Matter is listed for defence evidence.
It appears that accused was directed to take necessary steps before the date.
However, till date accused has not taken any steps in defence.
Instead, accused has filed her affidavit in defence evidence.
It is now a settled law that affidavit cannot be accepted in evidence from accused (see the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd. vs Nimesh B.Thakore decided on 11 January, 2010).
No other steps have been taken by the accused. The opportunity is closed.
List for final arguments on 21.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Vikas Nagpal Vs. M/s Radiance Multitech & Ors.
C.C.No.3701/10 & 3713/10 15.02.2012 Present: Mr. Satender Verma, Advocate on behalf of the complainant.
These are two connected matters.
He submits that he is a friend of complainant who is also an advocate.
Constable Umesh Kumar is also present.
It appears that a Show Cause Notice was directed to be issued to the concerned SHO. However, the office mentioned a direction to the SHO to ensure presence of Process server.
It appears that on 14.10.2011, a direction was given to verify the fact whether son of the accused was residing at the given address or not.
Let the said order be complied with afresh.
Specific directions be made on the notice.
SHO shall obtain report and submit within 20 days.
List the matters on 04.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Gokul Pharma Vs. Vinay Kumar C.C.No.4160/10 15.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Matter is at the stage of further cross-examination of the complainant.
However, ld. counsel for complainant is praying that matter may be called after lunch as the complainant has to come from Sonepat, Haryana and will only be able to appear after lunch.
Ld. Counsel for the accused, however, submits that he is not available after lunch as he is having other cases also in other courts.
One opportunity to both the parties.
List on 02.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Brij Lal Mahesh Kumar Vs. M/s Kapil Floor Mill C.C.No.1956/10, 1965/10, 1935/10 & 1941/10 15.02.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused Ms. Pushpa Mittal with proxy counsel. Counsel for the accused Naresh Kumar.
These are four connected matters.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused Naresh Kumar on the ground that accused is out of station for business work. A copy of Air Ticket has also been filed.
Ld. Counsel further submits that he is ready to cross-examine the complainant.
Complainant is, however, not appearing.
Let one opportunity be given to the complainant to appear and participate in the proceedings.
List on 07.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Surya Prakash Vs. Roop Kishore & Anr.
C.C.No.4023/10
15.02.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
An opportunity was given to the accused to lead defence evidence. However, till date accused has not taken any steps in defence. Accused could have filed list of witnesses or application for summoning of witnesses or he could have even made a request U/s 315 Cr.P.C. for purpose of examining himself in defence. Accused, however, chose not to do any of the things. Instead, he has changed his counsel today itself.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is seeking one opportunity.
I consider that change of counsel cannot be a ground for giving opportunity to any litigant.
There is no justification given by the accused for non taking steps in defence.
If we allow such tactics to prevail, the whole purpose of summary trial and guidelines of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi would be frustrated.
No further opportunity can be given to the accused.
Opportunity to lead defence evidence is, therefore, closed.
Put up for final arguments on 21.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Ms. Sonu Jain Vs. Anand Kumar Tantia C.C.No.4305/10 15.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused examined in defence. Cross-examined and discharged.
Defence evidence closed.
Put up for final arguments on 21.02.2012.
At request of ld. counsel for the accused, date is changed to 18.02.2012 after lunch.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan C.C.No.5685/11 15.02.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
An application for cancellation of NBW has been filed by the accused on the ground that father of the accused was seriously ill and, therefore, accused could not appear on 22.12.2011.
It appears that accused was not even present on 02.11.2011 and no explanation has been provided for this non appearance.
Even the reason for non appearance on 22.12.2011 has no foundation or support. Only a bald statement has been made in the application.
NBW has been received back unexecuted with a report bar bar jane par bhi warrantee mulaki nahi ho rahi hai...... janbhoojh kar chhipne ki koshish kar raha hai......... Chaman lal usko giraftari se chhipa raha hai.......
The application for cancellation of NBW is completely devoid of merits. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
Accused be taken into custody and be produced on 27.02.2012.
Ld. Counsel proxy counsel for the complainant has not filed any reply to the application moved U/s 145 NI Act.
Let the matter be listed for arguments and disposal of this application on 27.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises Vs. M/s Maharia Re-Surfacing & Constructions (P) Ltd.
C.C.No.1705/10
15.02.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of accused No.2 and 4 on the ground that accused No.2 is is not well. A medical certificate has also been filed showing bed rest of 15 days. So far as accused No.4 is concerned, she is 70 years of age. Exemption is allowed.
Ld. Revisional Court has dismissed the Revision Petition vide order dated 28.01.2012.
It appears that matter was listed for final arguments for 24.10.2011. However, accused moved an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed on 14.10.2011.
One more opportunity was given to the accused to advance arguments and file written arguments. However, ld. counsel for the accused sought 1 ½ month time on the pretext of settlement. However, subsequently, accused filed the above Revision Petition and proceedings were stayed by the Ld. Revisional Court. Eventually, the Revision Petition was dismissed as indicated above. Despite that ld. counsel for the accused is not ready for arguments. Instead he submits that he has filed a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi yesterday. He submits that the same has not been taken in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi till today.
In such circumstances, I have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Matter be listed for pronouncement of judgment on 27.02.2012.
Ld. Counsel for the accused may file written arguments before the next date.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Kapson Enterprises Vs. Sanjay Gupta C.C.No.2657/10, 2700/10, 2643/10, 2651/10 & 2618/10 15.02.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
These are five connected matters.
Inspector Dinesh Kumar and SI Deepak Verma are present from PS : Anand Parbat.
They submit that they have not received any process in CC No.2700/01.
A report from the ADCP has also been received stating that despite efforts, NBW has not been executed.
In one file i.e. CC No.2657/10, Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was executed. However, there was no date of execution on the process.
Inspector Dinesh Kumar submits that process was executed on 14.04.2011.
The date of hearing was 29.04.2011 and, therefore, process could not be treated as validly executed for want of mandatory gap of 30 days. Police officials are expected to executed the process with such mandatory gap required in law.
Complainant submits that accused is regularly contacting him through mobile phone.
Let fresh process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 27.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Selina Publishers Vs. M/s Book Point & Anr.
C.C.No.6023/1115.02.2012 Present: Special Power of Attorney of the complainant firm with counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of SPA the complainant firm recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Accused is acquitted of the charges.
Bail bond and Surety bond be discharged, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. Vs. Varun Kumar Chaturvedi & Arun Kumar Chaturvedi C.C.No.6049/11 File is taken up today as per direction of the Ld. Revisional Court dated 09.02.2012.
15.02.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Revisional Court has given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the matter is already listed for 02.03.2012 in this court.
List on 02.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Rachna Metal Industries P. Ltd. Vs. M/s Welcome World Engineering Services & Ors.
C.C.No.3395/1015.02.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
As per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 19.10.2011, ld. counsel for the accused has handed over a copy of that order to AR of the complainant.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that he will serve the notice of petition to the complainant tomorrow.
It appears that petition of accused No.3 is listed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 16.02.2012.
Ld. Counsel further submits that petition filed by accused No.2 is also listed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi tomorrow.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant is again seeking time to take appropriate steps for correction of Memo of Parties.
It is made clear that both the accused persons should be present on the next date for the purpose of framing of notice as there is no stay by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the proceeding.
List on 27.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Pradeep Kumar Vs. Manoj Bansal C.C.No.6575/12 15.02.2012 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, 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 Manoj Bansal for the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 01.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Anuj Chhabra Vs. Ashok Sharma C.C.No.1945/10 File is taken up on an application moved by the accused.
15.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel submits that accused has wrongly deposited the penalty amount of Rs.8,000/- with DLSA vide Receipt No.52833 dated 27.01.2012. A copy of receipt has also been filed.
By this application, accused seeks a direction for refund of amount from DLSA so that the same can be deposited with the State.
It appears that penalty of Rs.8,000/- was directed to be deposited with the State as per order dated 11.01.2012.
In such circumstances, Delhi Legal Services Authority (Central District) to transfer to the State the amount of Rs.8,000/- deposited by the accused vide Receipt No.52833 dated 27.01.2012.
Application disposed of.
File be listed on date fixed i.e. 28.03.2012.
A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, DLSA (Central District), Delhi.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Bansal Trading Company Vs. M/s Radiant Packaging & Anr.
C.C.No.6540/1215.02.2012 Present: SPA of the Complainant company with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction, 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 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 04.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Ms. Farha Deeba Vs. Ms. Sufiana Tarannum C.C.No.5981/11 & 5978/11 File is taken up today on an application for cancellation of NBW.
15.02.2012
Present: Accused with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Accused submits that because of misunderstanding, she was waiting outside the Court No. 367, THC, Delhi.
This is the first appearance of the accused and offence is bailable one, therefore, the accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount.
The same is furnished. Accepted.
List on date fixed i.e. 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Mohd. Raheel Vs. Akhtaruddin Javed C.C.No.3065/10 File is taken up today on an application for grant of bail.
15.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the accused.
He submits that accused is in custody since 13.02.2012.
He further submits that accused has learnt a memorable lesson and will be punctual in future.
I consider that every person should be given an opportunity to reform himself.
The accused be released on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of like amount.
Bail bond and Surety bond furnished. Accepted.
Accused be released if not required in any other case.
Release Warrant be sent.
List on date fixed i.e. 25.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Arun Goel Vs. Balram Tanwar C.C.No.50/10 File is taken up today on an application for summoning of accused from the fresh address.
15.02.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Complainant has filed this application seeking issuance of summons on the fresh address of the accused as mentioned in the application.
Let the previous order be complied with on the fresh address for date fixed i.e. 22.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Raj Kumar Chhabra Vs. Chaman Lal C.C.No.1784/10 15.02.2012 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Bank witness Chandrabhan from SBI has been examined and discharged.
Summons issued to the witness from Dena Bank received back with a report there is no Dena Bank.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he will search and provide the complete details of the Dena Bank.
Complainant has filed reply to the application of accused for summoning of witness.
Witness from Dena Bank be summoned. Accused to assist the Process Server.
Application in respect of other witnesses to be decided on the next date after hearing both the parties.
List on 26.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 R.N. Gupta Vs. Lal Ji Yadav C.C.No.3390/1 15.02.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant was present before lunch at 01.30 p.m. when matter was directed to be called after lunch for evidence. However, ld. counsel for the complainant is not appearing. Complainant submits that ld. counsel has some personal difficulty.
Vide statement of Lalit Sharma from ICICI Bank, Exh.DW1/1 i.e. the certified copy of Current Account Opening form has been taken on record.
Ahlmad from the court of Sh. S.K. Malhotra is present with file. He is discharged unexamined.
List for further defence evidence on 20.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Ms. Paramjeet Kaur Vs. Padma Nanda C.C.No.4/10 15.02.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Gulab Singh, LDC from DRT-I, Delhi is present.
Ahlamd from the court of Sh. Ajay Pandey is present with file.
Ahlmad from the court of Ms. Shivali Sharma is also present with file.
All the witnesses are discharged unexamined.
Since the matter has to be adjourned due to the conduction of complainant, a cost of Rs. 5,000/- is imposed upon the complainant for adjournment.
Out of the cost, Diet money of the witnesses to be paid and remaining to be deposited with DLSA within 10 days by the complainant.
Let the witnesses be summoned afresh for 22.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Aruna Singhal Vs. M/s D.D. Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.921/1015.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Tripurari Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case and I have instructions from the complainant to withdraw the present complaint case. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused .
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Aruna Singhal Vs. M/s D.D. Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.4987/1015.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Tripurari Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case and I have instructions from the complainant to withdraw the present complaint case. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused .
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Asha Nanda Vs. M/s D.D. Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.5003/1015.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Tripurari Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case and I have instructions from the complainant to withdraw the present complaint case. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused and nothing remains due towards the accused .
Therefore, the matter may be allowed to be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 C.C.No.6596/12 Fresh case received on assignment. Let it be checked and registered.
15.02.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel seeks time for arguments.
List on 22.02.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Pradeep Kumar Chawla Vs. Rattan Lal Chhabra C.C.No.2963/10 & 2961/10 15.02.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with proxy counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Matters are at the stage of further cross-examination of the complainant.
Both the ld. counsels are not available.
Accused has filed an adjournment application on the ground that ld. main counsel is suffering from Viral Fever.
One opportunity to the parties to participate in the proceedings.
List on 29.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Alpha Colour Labs Vs. Harish Grover C.C.No.55/10 15.02.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
Cost not deposited by the accused and ld. counsel for the accused submits that a revision has been preferred against the cost.
Matter is listed for arguments on application U/s 145(2) NI Act.
Parties, however, submits that settlement talks are going on and if two days time is given, matter may be settled.
List on 18.02.2012 after lunch.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Ms. Raj Abrol Vs. Atul Abrol C.C.No.5039/10 15.02.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
There is no report in respect of Production Warrant issued against the accused.
Be awaited.
Previous order be complied with afresh for 01.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Aslam Vs. Sushil Jain C.C.No.2460/10 15.02.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsel.
Accusation explained over to the accused.
His Plea and Examination recorded separately.
List for defence evidence on 22.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Bhagat Ram Vs. Neelam Sharma C.C.No.4369/10 15.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with LAC Sh. N.K. Saraswat.
Matter is listed for payment to be made by the accused to the complainant. However, accused is again seeking time on the ground that her minor son is sick and has suffered a paralytic attach.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that he is not opposing the prayer if accused undertakes to pay the entire amount on the next date.
Accused seeks one months time and undertakes to pay the amount to the complainant on the next date.
It is made clear that if accused fails to pay the amount, matter shall be decided on the next date after hearing the parties.
List on 20.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Aditya Textiles Vs. Virender Singh C.C.No.6318/11 15.02.2012 Present: None.
No one is appearing since morning despite repeated and several calls.
Even no one has been appearing for the last two dates.
Complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan C.C.No.5685/11 15.02.2012 Statement of Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel for complainant company. Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant company do hereby state that I have instructions on behalf of the complainant company to settle the matter. I have received Rs.7,500/- from the counsel for the accused in lieu of full and final settlement of the present case.
Therefore, the complaint 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/15.02.2012 Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan C.C.No.5685/11 File is taken up on a joint application moved by both the ld. counsels.
15.02.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
They submit that they have arrived at a settlement for Rs.7,500/-.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has paid Rs.7,500/- to the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Statement of ld. Counsel for the complainant in respect of compounding recorded.
The matter stands settled U/s 147 NI Act.
Accused be deemed to be acquitted from the charges in the present complaint case.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond stands discharged.
Accused be released, if not required in any other case.
Release Warrant be issued forthwith.
Earlier date i.e. 27.02.2012 stands cancelled.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Raj Kumar & Co. Vs. Sandeep Saluja C.C.No.3559/10 & 3557/10 15.02.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Accused with proxy counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Vide separate judgment, accused is convicted for the offence charged in both the matters.
List on 18.02.2012 for arguments on sentence.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 Asha Nanda Vs. M/s D.D. Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.5003/10
15.02.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant 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/15.02.2012 Aruna Singhal Vs. M/s D.D. Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.4987/10
15.02.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant 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/15.02.2012 Aruna Singhal Vs. M/s D.D. Buildwel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.921/10
15.02.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant 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/15.02.2012 M/s Raj Laxmi Metal Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Pragati Electrocom (P) Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.6599/12Fresh case received by way of assignment. Let it be checked and registered.
15.02.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Cheque pertains to the outside Delhi and the accused is also resident of a place situate outside Delhi. Hon'ble Justice Suresh Kait has passed the following order in VIJAY GHAI and ANR Vs BON MART INTERNATIONAL LTD CRL. M.C. 3977/2011 dated 01.12.2011:-
"1. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, ld. Sr. Adv. who is appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has given opinion in a case of GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Limited Vs. Rahisuddin Khan vide Judgment dated 09.09.2010. Vide the said Judgment of this Court the controversy, whether the view as decided in a case of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi W.P. (C) 11911/2009 to be taken on jurisdiction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, has been decided keeping in the view the decision taken in Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (1)SCC 720 and in K.Bhaskaran vs. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., 1999(7)SCC510 wherein 5 sectors of the jurisdiction were decided.
2. Considering all the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court, I record my opinion that K. Bhskaran (Supra) is good law and that has to be accepted and on the basis of that jurisdiction under Section 138 N.I. Act has to be decided. Therefore, on encountering with a similar controversy K. Bhaskaran (Supra) has to be followed.
3. For some time, Delhi judiciary had a direction to decide the cases under Section 138 N.I. Act. However, one judgment has been delivered by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court after an opinion was expressed in G.E. Capital (Supra), whereby in 15 matters being lead matter of Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Destination of the World (Sub-continent) Pvt. Ltd. again the opinion is contrary to the view taken by this Court in the said G.E. Capital (Supra).
4. Ld. Sr. Advocate keeping aside the present case has argued that for the subordinate judiciary of Delhi, at least one view or direction should be there of this court so that there should not be any conflicting orders passed by the subordinate judiciary.
5. He further submits sometime, it prejudices the voice of a judgment of this court if the particular subordinate judge does not tow the same line into view as has been decided by the Judge of this Court. Therefore, at least this court has to take the uniform view so that no confusion should exist.
6. I find force in the submission of ld. Sr. Adv.
7. Though I tried to decide this controversy by giving the detailed judgment even after considering the law of precedent, however, after the judgment of Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. and Ors. (Supra) of this Court, now I feel this controversy has to be decided once for all so that at least subordinate judiciary will have a particular direction.
8. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the issue on the jurisdiction has to be decided by a larger Bench of this Court : in view of conflicting opinion expressed in Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. And Ors. (Supra).
9. Without giving any opinion in the instant case, my opinion recorded in G.E. Capital (Supra), be referred to a Larger Bench subject to the order of Hon'ble the acting Chief Justice.
10. Re-notify on 07.12.2011.
CRL. M.A. 18700/2011 (Stay) Till this controversy is being decided, proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed. Dasti."
It would be appropriate to await the outcome of the said reference.
List on 02.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Browndove Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Neeraj Singh C.C.No.6536/12 15.02.2012 Present: None.
Cheque pertains to the outside Delhi and the accused is also resident of a place situate outside Delhi. Hon'ble Justice Suresh Kait has passed the following order in VIJAY GHAI and ANR Vs BON MART INTERNATIONAL LTD CRL. M.C. 3977/2011 dated 01.12.2011:-
"1. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, ld. Sr. Adv. who is appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has given opinion in a case of GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Limited Vs. Rahisuddin Khan vide Judgment dated 09.09.2010. Vide the said Judgment of this Court the controversy, whether the view as decided in a case of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi W.P. (C) 11911/2009 to be taken on jurisdiction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, has been decided keeping in the view the decision taken in Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (1)SCC 720 and in K.Bhaskaran vs. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., 1999(7)SCC510 wherein 5 sectors of the jurisdiction were decided.
2. Considering all the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court, I record my opinion that K. Bhskaran (Supra) is good law and that has to be accepted and on the basis of that jurisdiction under Section 138 N.I. Act has to be decided. Therefore, on encountering with a similar controversy K. Bhaskaran (Supra) has to be followed.
3. For some time, Delhi judiciary had a direction to decide the cases under Section 138 N.I. Act. However, one judgment has been delivered by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court after an opinion was expressed in G.E. Capital (Supra), whereby in 15 matters being lead matter of Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Destination of the World (Sub-continent) Pvt. Ltd. again the opinion is contrary to the view taken by this Court in the said G.E. Capital (Supra).
4. Ld. Sr. Advocate keeping aside the present case has argued that for the subordinate judiciary of Delhi, at least one view or direction should be there of this court so that there should not be any conflicting orders passed by the subordinate judiciary.
5. He further submits sometime, it prejudices the voice of a judgment of this court if the particular subordinate judge does not tow the same line into view as has been decided by the Judge of this Court. Therefore, at least this court has to take the uniform view so that no confusion should exist.
6. I find force in the submission of ld. Sr. Adv.
7. Though I tried to decide this controversy by giving the detailed judgment even after considering the law of precedent, however, after the judgment of Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. and Ors. (Supra) of this Court, now I feel this controversy has to be decided once for all so that at least subordinate judiciary will have a particular direction.
8. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the issue on the jurisdiction has to be decided by a larger Bench of this Court : in view of conflicting opinion expressed in Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. And Ors. (Supra).
9. Without giving any opinion in the instant case, my opinion recorded in G.E. Capital (Supra), be referred to a Larger Bench subject to the order of Hon'ble the acting Chief Justice.
10. Re-notify on 07.12.2011.
CRL. M.A. 18700/2011 (Stay) Till this controversy is being decided, proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed. Dasti."
It would be appropriate to await the outcome of the said reference.
List on 02.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Browndove Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shravan Kumar Tripathi C.C.No.6537/12 15.02.2012 Present: None.
Cheque pertains to the outside Delhi and the accused is also resident of a place situate outside Delhi. Hon'ble Justice Suresh Kait has passed the following order in VIJAY GHAI and ANR Vs BON MART INTERNATIONAL LTD CRL. M.C. 3977/2011 dated 01.12.2011:-
"1. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, ld. Sr. Adv. who is appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has given opinion in a case of GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Limited Vs. Rahisuddin Khan vide Judgment dated 09.09.2010. Vide the said Judgment of this Court the controversy, whether the view as decided in a case of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi W.P. (C) 11911/2009 to be taken on jurisdiction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, has been decided keeping in the view the decision taken in Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (1)SCC 720 and in K.Bhaskaran vs. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., 1999(7)SCC510 wherein 5 sectors of the jurisdiction were decided.
2. Considering all the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court, I record my opinion that K. Bhskaran (Supra) is good law and that has to be accepted and on the basis of that jurisdiction under Section 138 N.I. Act has to be decided. Therefore, on encountering with a similar controversy K. Bhaskaran (Supra) has to be followed.
3. For some time, Delhi judiciary had a direction to decide the cases under Section 138 N.I. Act. However, one judgment has been delivered by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court after an opinion was expressed in G.E. Capital (Supra), whereby in 15 matters being lead matter of Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Destination of the World (Sub-continent) Pvt. Ltd. again the opinion is contrary to the view taken by this Court in the said G.E. Capital (Supra).
4. Ld. Sr. Advocate keeping aside the present case has argued that for the subordinate judiciary of Delhi, at least one view or direction should be there of this court so that there should not be any conflicting orders passed by the subordinate judiciary.
5. He further submits sometime, it prejudices the voice of a judgment of this court if the particular subordinate judge does not tow the same line into view as has been decided by the Judge of this Court. Therefore, at least this court has to take the uniform view so that no confusion should exist.
6. I find force in the submission of ld. Sr. Adv.
7. Though I tried to decide this controversy by giving the detailed judgment even after considering the law of precedent, however, after the judgment of Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. and Ors. (Supra) of this Court, now I feel this controversy has to be decided once for all so that at least subordinate judiciary will have a particular direction.
8. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the issue on the jurisdiction has to be decided by a larger Bench of this Court : in view of conflicting opinion expressed in Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. And Ors. (Supra).
9. Without giving any opinion in the instant case, my opinion recorded in G.E. Capital (Supra), be referred to a Larger Bench subject to the order of Hon'ble the acting Chief Justice.
10. Re-notify on 07.12.2011.
CRL. M.A. 18700/2011 (Stay) Till this controversy is being decided, proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed. Dasti."
It would be appropriate to await the outcome of the said reference.
List on 02.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 M/s Bansal Trading Co. Vs. M/s Sunder Chemicals & Anr.
C.C.No.6539/1215.02.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Cheque pertains to the outside Delhi and the accused is also resident of a place situate outside Delhi. Hon'ble Justice Suresh Kait has passed the following order in VIJAY GHAI and ANR Vs BON MART INTERNATIONAL LTD CRL. M.C. 3977/2011 dated 01.12.2011:-
"1. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, ld. Sr. Adv. who is appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has given opinion in a case of GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Limited Vs. Rahisuddin Khan vide Judgment dated 09.09.2010. Vide the said Judgment of this Court the controversy, whether the view as decided in a case of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi W.P. (C) 11911/2009 to be taken on jurisdiction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, has been decided keeping in the view the decision taken in Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (1)SCC 720 and in K.Bhaskaran vs. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Anr., 1999(7)SCC510 wherein 5 sectors of the jurisdiction were decided.
2. Considering all the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court, I record my opinion that K. Bhskaran (Supra) is good law and that has to be accepted and on the basis of that jurisdiction under Section 138 N.I. Act has to be decided. Therefore, on encountering with a similar controversy K. Bhaskaran (Supra) has to be followed.
3. For some time, Delhi judiciary had a direction to decide the cases under Section 138 N.I. Act. However, one judgment has been delivered by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court after an opinion was expressed in G.E. Capital (Supra), whereby in 15 matters being lead matter of Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Destination of the World (Sub-continent) Pvt. Ltd. again the opinion is contrary to the view taken by this Court in the said G.E. Capital (Supra).
4. Ld. Sr. Advocate keeping aside the present case has argued that for the subordinate judiciary of Delhi, at least one view or direction should be there of this court so that there should not be any conflicting orders passed by the subordinate judiciary.
5. He further submits sometime, it prejudices the voice of a judgment of this court if the particular subordinate judge does not tow the same line into view as has been decided by the Judge of this Court. Therefore, at least this court has to take the uniform view so that no confusion should exist.
6. I find force in the submission of ld. Sr. Adv.
7. Though I tried to decide this controversy by giving the detailed judgment even after considering the law of precedent, however, after the judgment of Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. and Ors. (Supra) of this Court, now I feel this controversy has to be decided once for all so that at least subordinate judiciary will have a particular direction.
8. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate that the issue on the jurisdiction has to be decided by a larger Bench of this Court : in view of conflicting opinion expressed in Shree Raj Travels and Tours Ltd. And Ors. (Supra).
9. Without giving any opinion in the instant case, my opinion recorded in G.E. Capital (Supra), be referred to a Larger Bench subject to the order of Hon'ble the acting Chief Justice.
10. Re-notify on 07.12.2011.
CRL. M.A. 18700/2011 (Stay) Till this controversy is being decided, proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed. Dasti."
It would be appropriate to await the outcome of the said reference.
List on 02.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012 S. Inderjeet Singh Vs. Ms. Renu Kapoor.
C.C.No.1676/1015.02.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Accusation explained over to the accused.
Her Plea and Examination recorded separately.
An application U/s 145(2) NI Act moved on behalf of the accused.
Put up the matter for reply on this application/DE for 21.03.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/15.02.2012