Delhi District Court
Sanjeev Kumar Gulati vs . Mukesh Bhatia on 10 December, 2012
Sanjeev Kumar Gulati Vs. Mukesh Bhatia CC No.5984/11 10.12.2012
Statement of Mr. Mukesh Bhatia, accused (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Vineet Gandhi, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. On S.A. I do not know whether the complainant has lodged any complaint against me in PS : DBG Road, New Delhi. It is correct that I have moved an application U/s 145(2) NI Act in the present case.
Q. Are you aware about the contents of the said application ? Ans. I am aware about the contents of the said application.
I have seen the Agreement Exh.CW1/E. It is wrong to suggest that I am aware of the fact that a complaint Exh.CW1/D against me was lodged by the complainant in DBG Police Station. It is wrong to suggest that it was only thereafter that the agreement Exh.CW1/E was executed between me and the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that at the time of execution of the said agreement Exh.CW1/E, I have issued and handed over three cheques amounting to Rs.26 lacs to the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that I have handed over the above said three cheques to the complainant on account of the repayment of earnest money of Rs.21 lacs which I have received from the complainant at the time of execution of the agreement Exh.CW1/A dated 28.04.2008 and Rs.5 lacs in terms of Clause-11 of the said agreement. It is wrong to suggest that in order to avoid the criminal prosecution on the basis of complaint Exh.CW1/D lodged against me by the complainant, I have executed the agreement Exh.CW1/E and also issued and given three cheques amounting to Rs.26 lacs to the complainant. It is wrong to suggest that the contents of the cheque Exh.CW1/F of Rs.10 lacs have been filled up by me except my signature at Point A on the said cheque in CC No.5984/11. It is wrong to suggest that I have corrected the date on the said cheque at Point B or that I have acknowledged the same by putting my signature at Point E. It is wrong to suggest that the contents of the cheque Exh.CW1/F of Rs.11 lacs have been filled up by me except my signature at Point C on the said cheque in CC No.5983/11. It is wrong to suggest that I have corrected the amount on the said cheque at Point A or that I have acknowledged the same by putting my signature at encircled D today in the court. It is correct that all those three cheques were dishonoured owing to insufficient funds in my account.
Cross-examination deferred for after lunch time. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 Sanjeev Kumar Gulati Vs. Mukesh Bhatia CC No.5984/11 10.12.2012 Statement of Mr. Mukesh Bhatia, accused (recalled for further cross-examination after lunch).
XXXXX by Mr. Vineet Gandhi, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. On S.A. It is wrong to suggest that the contents of the cheque Exh.CW1/F of Rs.10 lacs have been filled up by me apart from my signature at Point A on the said cheque in CC No.5984/11. It is wrong to suggest that I have corrected the date on the said cheque at Point B or that I have acknowledged the same by putting my signature at Point E. It is wrong to suggest that the contents of the cheque Exh.CW1/F of Rs.11 lacs have been filled up by me apart from my signature at Point C on the said cheque in CC No.5983/11. It is correct that Account No.207246 is maintained by me at Allahabad Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. It is wrong to suggest that after the return of the cheques bearing No.101323 and 101324 (Exh.CW1/F in both the complaints), the complainant had served two legal notices dated 23.01.2009 and 07.01.2009 respectively. It is wrong to suggest that the said two notices were served upon me. Q. Whether your address appearing on legal notices dated 23.01.2009 and 07.01.2009 are correct or not ?
Ans. My addresses appearing on the above said notices are correct.
It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely stated that the three cheques amounting to Rs.26 lacs were given by me to the complainant at the time of execution of agreement Exh.CW1/A or that it is for this reason that the details of the said cheques are not mentioned in the agreement Exh.CW1/A. It is wrong to suggest that I have got served the notice Exh.CW1/B to the complainant through an Advocate Sh. J.P. Singh. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely stated that the said three cheques were given by me to the complainant with the condition that if the deal between the original owners of the property and the complainant is not materialized, the said cheques would be returned to me.
Q. Whether the above said Clause is mentioned in the agreement Exh.CW1/A or not ? Ans. It is correct that the above said Clause is not mentioned in the Agreement Exh.CW1/A. It is wrong to suggest that since there was no such term or condition settled between the complainant and myself, the said Clause was not incorporated in the agreement Exh.CW1/A or that I have not given the said three cheques to the complainant at the time of the execution of the agreement Exh.CW1/A. Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the accused. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 R.P. Goyal Vs. Vazeer Ullah CC No.3055/1 10.12.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
BW be awaited.
Fresh BW be issued against the accused at the earliest.
Matter pertains to the year 2001.
List on 04.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M/s Aspen Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Vital Kisan Choudhary & Anr.
CC No.3138/10
10.12.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Till date fresh address has not been filed.
Last opportunity subject to a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited with Mediation Center, Tis Hazari, Delhii.
Summons be only issued thereafter for 02.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M/s Empire Home Appliances Limited Vs. M/s Pragati Distributors CC No.2427/10 10.12.2012 Present: None.
Notice be issued to the complainant for 20.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 G.D. Gogia Vs. Ms. Sunaina Devi CC No.6894/12 10.12.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
He seeks sometime to produce original Agreement to Sell.
List on 16.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 Havell's India Limited (Complainant).
CC No.5349/11 5391/11 & 5392/11 10.12.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
These are three matters of the complainant.
She submits that she has filed Process Fee.
Let summons be issued for 04.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M/s Kalatmak Ladies Suits (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Herritage Handloom Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.3578/1010.12.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
One address of the accused has been filed by the complainant.
Let BW in the sum of Rs.5,000/- be issued for 05.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M/s V.S. Machinery & Spares Vs. M/s Cheema Papers Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.4354/1010.12.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
He submits that only two PDCs remained to be realized.
List on 28.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 L.D. Gomber Vs. Ms. Surekha Sharma CC No.81/10 10.12.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Complainant submits that his counsel is not available as he has gone to Haryana for the purpose of Interview.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
One opportunity for the accused to appear and participate.
List on 15.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 Avtar Singh Vs. Subhash Chander & Anr.
CC No.6953/1210.12.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
He has filed affidavit in evidence with documents exhibited by Oath Commissioner. Ld. counsel for the complainant, however, seeks time to advance arguments on the point whether without impleading the firm, the case can be maintained against the partners or not.
List on 14.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 Ram Kishan Gupta Vs. Ram Murti CC No.6534/12 10.12.2012 Present: Commission with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused has given Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost imposed by the Ld. Appellate Court. Accused is, however, seeking adjournment on the ground that his ld. counsel is not available.
List on 01.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 Sanjeev Enterprises Vs. Ms. Madhu Aggarwal & Anr.
CC No.5201/10 & 5207/1010.12.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
These are two connected matters.
NBW still awaited. Order dated 16.07.2012 be again complied with and the same shall be executed by the SHO by deputing a police official for 28.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M/s Sekhawati Capital Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sher Ali CC No.67/10 10.12.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Head Constable Satyapal absent despite service of notice.
A Show Cause Notice be issued against him for 28.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 Vijay Bajaj Vs. Ms. Ritu Yadav CC No.3936/10 10.12.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
They seek some more time for filing of compromise deed.
List on 28.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M/s Kuber Rubber Industries Vs. SRI Hydraulics CC No.5792/11 10.12.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
He is seeking adjournment for want of complainant.
Last opportunity to lead pre-summoning evidence.
List on 01.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. M/s Sairam Agro Chemicals & Anr.
CC No.2597/1010.12.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
SHO Inspector Raj Kumar is present alongwith Inspector Rishi Pal Singh.
They submit that due to investigation of case FIR No.116/12, they could not appear on 30.06.2012. A report has been received from the Additional CP (West District), Delhi wherewith a letter of SHO is also enclosed. The report is showing that SHO, Moti Nagar has been warned to remain more careful in future and that concerned Head Constables have been directed to explain their lapses.
Inspector Raj Kumar submits that no such mistake would be repeated in future and that all the steps to rectify all mistakes in future would be taken.
It is expected from all the police officials to comply with the orders of the court and to execute processes in the manner provided under law. Police Department should ensure strict compliance of law and order of courts by all the police officials. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 Ravinder Singh Kohli Vs. Vijay Singh CC No.3486/10 10.12.2012 Present: None.
NBW unexecuted.
Even complainant is not appearing since 30.08.2012.
Be awaited for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 At 02.11 p.m. Present: None.
Complaint dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 J.D. Industries (India) Limited Vs. M/s Protech Galvanizers & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.7089/1210.12.2012 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
At request, adjourned to 17.12.2012 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M.R. Bansal Vs. Mrityuanjay Kumar CC No.3186/10 10.12.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Proxy counsel is seeking a passover for want of complainant and ld. counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 At 02.44 p.m. Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Complainant submits that accused has not paid any amount to him.
A Notice be issued to the accused for 17.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 State Vs. Raj Kumar FIR No.438/07 PS : Hari Nagar U/s 279/337 IPC 10.12.2012 Present: Accused with counsel.
SHO, PS : Hari Nagar in person.
SHO submits that the refusal was a fault on the part of Record Clerk and that such mistake will not happen in future at any point of time. He further submits that he has also intimated the IO about the case who is now presently posted at PS : Ashok Vihar. It is expected that all the police officials should follow all the directions of court of law and should not refuse any notice or summons.
IO and complainant be also called for 21.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 Sanjeev Kumar Gulati Vs. Mukesh Bhatia CC No.5983/11 & 5984/11 10.12.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Accused partly cross-examined in CC No.5984/11.
Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the accused as he submits that he has to attend a function outside Delhi and it is already 03.35 p.m. At request, adjourned to 13.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012 M/s Vijaypower Generators Ltd. Vs. Sumit Seth CC No.4433/10, 4216/10, 2739/10, 4448/10, 4155/10 & 2740/10 10.12.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are six connected matters.
Arguments heard.
List on 22.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 10.12.2012