Delhi District Court
Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd vs . Karan Singh on 11 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT ARORA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE:SPECIAL COURT-13, DWARKA COURTS : NEW
DELHI.
C.C NO. 4455/10
Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd Vs. Karan Singh
1. Complaint Case No. : 4455/10
2. Name of the complainant : Sree Gokulam Chit &
Finance Co. (P) Ltd
Regional Office at:
1E/18, First Floor,
Jhandewalan Extn.,
New Delhi-110055
Branch Office at:
605, Root Tower, Plot
No. 7, District Centre,
Lakshmi Nagar, New
Delhi-110092
Through its present
POA Holder/A.R.
Mr. Rajeev Sharma
3 Name of the accused and his : Karan Singh
parentage and residence S/o late Shri Shyamey
Singh
R/o S-342 School
Block Shakarpur
Delhi-110092
4 Offence complained of or
proved : U/s 138 of the
Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881
CC No 4455/10
Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 1 of 23
5. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
6 Final Order : Acquitted
7 Date of Order : 11.09.2013
8 Order reserved on : 30.08.2013
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THIS CASE:
1. This is a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881. The complaint has been filed by Shree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. P. Ltd., a company engaged in chit fund business, having its registered office at Chennai and having its branch office at District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. Complainant is stated to be engaged in chit fund business. The complaint has been filed through Shri Rajeev Sharma, who is stated to be the Authorized Representative. It is stated that the accused Karan Singh was a subscriber of a chit fund group bearing no. J-2H/1256/11 floated by the complainant company. The accused Karan Singh on his bid was declared a prized subscriber and the complainant disbursed the chit fund amount to the accused after deducting the commission.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had failed to adhere to the terms and condition of the agreement and began highly irregular in the payment of the installments. It is further stated that the accused in discharge of aforesaid liability had issued a cheque CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 2 of 23 bearing No. 979997 dated 24.08.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,55,228/-, drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd. The aforesaid cheque, when presented for encashment was returned unpaid by the banker of the accused on 24.09.2010 due to the reason 'insufficient funds'. Subsequently a legal demand notice dated 21.10.2010 was issued by the complainant calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount and despite the service of notice, the accused had failed to pay the cheque amount to the complainant and in these circumstances, the complainant preferred the present complaint seeking prosecution of the accused for the offence u/s 138 of NI Act.
3. The complaint was filed on 15.10.2010 and after recording pre summoning evidence accused was summoned to face trial vide order dated 16.12.2010. In compliance with the summoning order, the accused appeared before the court to answer the accusation and a notice u/s 251 CrPC was framed against him. In response to the notice u/s 251 CrPC the accused pleaded 'not guilty and claimed trial' and took the plea that his family has taken three committees from complainant company for an amount of Rs.11,25,000/- out of which they have paid Rs. 7-8 lacs. He has taken the plea that the outstanding amount pending against him is not as much as claimed by the complainant. He also denied the receipt of legal notice.
CC No 4455/10Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 3 of 23
4. Subsequent to the framing of notice, an application u/s 145(2) of NI Act was moved by the accused seeking cross examination of the complainant witness i.e. CW1. The said application was allowed on 06.09.2011 and subsequently cross examination of CW1 Shri Rajeev Sharma was recorded. To substantiate its case complainant had only examined its AR Shri Rajeev Sharma as CW1. He adopted his earlier affidavit given at the stage of pre summoning evidence and relied upon the documents exhibited as Ex.CW-1/A to Ex.CW-1/G. CW1 had deposed in terms of the averment made in the complaint. He proved his General Power of Attorney which was exhibited as Ex.CW1/A. The cheque in question was proved as Ex.CW1/B. He further deposed that the cheque issued by the accused was dishonored vide memo return Ex.CW1/C with remarks 'insufficient funds'. The legal notice issued by the complainant was proved as Ex.CW1/D and the UPC receipts, courier receipt and registered post receipts as Ex.CW1/E & Ex.CW1/F (colly). The Internet generated tracking report regarding the service of notice sent through registered post was exhibited as Ex.CW-1/G.
5. CW1 was cross examined by the Defence Counsel at length i.e. on 21.09.2011, 16.02.2012 and 23.02.2012 . A bare perusal of the cross examination of CW1 shows, that the witness had stated his ignorance to certain relevant CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 4 of 23 questions put forth by Ld. Defence Counsel. A brief glance at the cross examination of CW1 is as follows. CW1 has stated that he was deposing on the basis of the record maintained by the complainant. He was unable to tell the number of installments repaid by the accused and stated that he do not remember the same. At the same time CW1 also stated, that he will produce the statement of account on the next date of hearing, however, the same was never produced or tendered by the witness. He was further unable to answer the total amount of the chit fund group, who were the members of the chit group. He denied the suggestion that no chit agreement was ever executed between the parties and therefore, he was unable to tell the amount of chit fund, its members and other details.
6. Upon completion of the cross examination of CW1, the complainant did not opted to examine any other witness and therefore CE was closed. Subsequently, statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded and all the incriminating evidence was explained to the accused. Accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC had stated, that he had availed the chit fund subscription floated by the complainant. The complainant took three cheques from him and also obtained his signatures on certain documents. The cheque was only having his signatures and the remaining contents were left blank. He stated CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 5 of 23 that he had availed around Rs.3,73,000/- which was given to him by way of two cheques and he had already returned a sum of Rs. Five Lacs in total. He stated that there was no legal liability on his part and the cheque is being misused. He had also denied service of notice.
7. The accused initially had sought to examine defence witnesses, however, despite ample opportunities no witness was examined in defence. Finally on 09.05.2013, the defence evidence was closed and the matter was then taken up for final arguments.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel from both the sides. It is the respective submission of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that they have successfully proved their case beyond any shadow of doubt. The primary contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is as follows:
Ld. counsel for the complainant had argued that the accused had failed to discharge the presumption. Accused had admitted his signatures on the cheque and the fact, that he had availed chit fund amount from the complainant and its disbursal, therefore, complainant case is itself proved. Accused has failed to prove that he had repaid the chit fund amount and there is no CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 6 of 23 documentary evidence placed on record/any receipt showing the payment made by him. Ld Counsel submits that once the liability is admitted by the accused and the issuance of cheque is also not disputed, the burden lies on the accused to show that he has a probable defence. It is thus argued that all these facts taken as a whole, leads to only one conclusion ie. The complainant version stands proved and accused has been unable to raise any probable defence.
Accused has failed to lead any evidence in his defence nor he had entered witness box as a defence witness and therefore an adverse inference can be drawn on the accused. Lastly, it is the contention of the Ld. counsel for the complainant that the testimony of the complainant coupled with the benefit of presumptions U/s 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act goes to show that the complainant has been successful in proving its case.
It is argued that some minor contradiction here and there and some minor omission on the part of complainant does not cast any doubt on the complainant version and the technical grounds raised by the accused are not sufficient to rebut CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 7 of 23 the case of the complainant.
9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the case of the complainant is absolutely vague in nature and the testimony of CW1 is totally infirm and lacks credibility. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the perusal of the cross-examination of CW1 shows that it was full of contradiction, ignorance of basic facts and is insufficient/legally inadmissible as the witness was having no knowledge of the entire transaction and his testimony is also hearsay in nature. It is further argued that the complaint as well as the testimony of the witness is bereft of necessary details and the complainant had concealed relevant fact from the Court and have failed to produce any documentary evidence i.e. chit fund agreement, statement of account showing the liability of the accused.
10.Ld. Counsel for the accused has also filed written arguments wherein several grounds have been raised. In brief some of the grounds urged needs a quick reference and they can be summed up as follows:
Firstly, it is argued that the complaint has been filed by an unauthorised person and the complainant has failed to prove that Sh. Rajeev Sharma is competent to initiate the present CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 8 of 23 proceedings. It is argued that power of attoney Ex.CW1/A which is executed by Mr. A.M. Gopalan who claims himself to be the Managing Director of complainant company, however, there is nothing on record to show that Mr. Gopalan is or was authorised by Board of Directors to give authority to Mr. Rajeev Sharma. No board resolution or memorandum of article of association have been filed to show that Mr. Gopalan was authorised to appoint Mr. Rajeev Sharma for the purpose of filing the present complaint.
Secondly, it is argued that the complaint as well as testimony of CW1 is completely silent and does not discloses as to when chit agreement was executed, what was the prize of chit amount, the period of commencement of chit fund. The chit fund agreement in original has not been placed on record and the photocopy cannot be read in evidence. It is further stated that the witness CW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the aforesaid agreement was not executed in his presence and thus he was not competent to have proved or deposed qua the agreement. The complainant has failed to examine the author of the document or the witness in whose presence the agreement was executed.CC No 4455/10
Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 9 of 23 Thirdly, the complainant has not led any evidence to disclose as to how the amount mentioned in the cheque was due upon the accused. It is stated that the witness was unable to say as to how many installments the accused had paid or what amount is remaining. CW1 could not even explain that out of the total cheque amount what amount was on account of the interest charges.
It is next contention that the statement of account pertaining to chit fund account of the accused has not been placed on record despite sufficient opportunity. The complainant had not examined any other witness ie. any employee working with the complainant who was dealing with the account of the accused.
Lastly, it is argued that adverse presumption needs to be drawn against the complainant for their failure to produce chit fund agreement, statement of account. It is argued that the alleged photocopy of chit fund agreement is in admissible in evidence as it is a photocopy and the original chit agreement was not produced despite the fact, the complainant was in possession of the original.
To counter the contentions raised by the ld Counsel for the complainant, the Ld. Defence Counsel CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 10 of 23 submits that it is a well settled preposition of law that it is not necessary for the accused to examine himself as a defence witness in each and every case and the accused can rely upon the cross examination of the complainant to show that in version of the complainant was improbable. Reliance is placed on the following decisions K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan "2008(1) DCR 151, Veena Rani Chabra Vs. Manju Rohida (2009{2} DCR 302), M.S. Narayan Menon Vs. State of Kerala (2006)6 HSC 39.
Reliance is also placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court to the matter M/s Pine Products Industries and Anr. Vs. M/s R.P. Gupta and sons 2007(1) JCC(NI) 28. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble High Court had found that there were no detail mentioned in the complaint or in the evidence regarding the date on which the amount was paid, the rate of interest etc. The Hon'ble High Court held that "there is no dispute that the presumption is rebuttable. The presumption has to be rebutted in the course of trial and once rebutted, the onus would shif on the complainant to establish and prove beyond reasonable doubts that the cheque was in fact issued for discharged in whole or in part, of any debt or liability".CC No 4455/10
Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 11 of 23
11.Having heard both the sides, it will be pertinent at this juncture, to take note of the settled position of law on the issues involved in the present matter. It is well settled that once accused admits issuance of cheque to the complainant and the cheque is proved to be drawn on an account maintained by the accused, the presumption u/s 139 NI Act and Section 118 of NI Act comes into operation i.e. the cheque is presumed to have been drawn for a valid consideration and in discharge of a legal liability. The onus now shifts upon the accused to rebut these presumptions by leading cogent evidence. The issue pertaining to the case in hand is related to the presumption u/s 139 NI Act and Section 118 of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the aforesaid presumptions in the case of "Rangappa v. Sri Mohan 2010 STPL(DC) 952 SC, and it was observed: Keeping this in view, it is a settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of' preponderance of probabilities'. Therefore, if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the prosecution can fail. As clarified in the citations, the accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise such a defence and it is conceivable that in some cases the accused may not need to adduce evidence of his/her own."
CC No 4455/10Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 12 of 23 Another landmark decision of Hon'ble SC was in the case of "Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16 it was held that "the accused is not required to discharge the presumption by the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt". rather by reasonable probability I i.e, preponderance of probabilities.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Krishna Janardhan Bhatt Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde" has dealt with the presumption u/s 138 & 139 of the NI Act viz-a-viz the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. It was further observed that an accused for discharging the burden of the proof under a statue need not examine himself. He may discharge his burden on the basis of materials already brought on record. An accused has an constitutional right to maintain silence. Standard of proof on the part of the accused and that of the prosecution in a criminal case is different. It was held: Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is 'preponderance of probabilities'. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.15. In para 33 of the CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 13 of 23 aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the presumption of innocence is a human right. The court must be on guard to see that merely on the application for presumption as contemplated u/s 139 of NI Act, the same may lead to injustice or mistaken conviction.
12. Now, keeping in view the afore stated principles of law enumerated above, I shall now deal with the rival contention of the Ld. Counsels for the parties i.e. whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not. Since the accused has mainly relied upon the cross examination of the CW1, which according to the accused, are sufficient enough to hold that the presumption contemplated u/s 139 NI Act has been rebutted. It is against this background, I shall now proceed to consider/take note of the cross examination of the witness i.e. CW1. The testimony of the witness is reproduced herein.
"I do not remember how much amount accused has paid. I do not remember the amount outstanding against the accused. Vol. I can only answer after going through the statement of account. I have gone through the judicial file. The statement of account is not on record. It is correct that there is nothing filed on record showing the alleged chit amount was disbursed to the accused and i.e. CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 14 of 23 why no document pertaining to disbursement of chit amount is on record".
In his later testimony the witness has stated: The cheque in question is with respect to full and final chit amount of the accused. I do not know if the accused has also subscribed to any other chit apart from aforesaid complainant. The cheque in question was not handed over in my presence.
It is wrong to suggest that no amount as alleged was ever disbursed to the accused. It is correct that I am not sure whether the cheque in question was handed over to company. I am not aware who has filled up the details on the cheque."
13 The cross examination of CW1 does not ends here and he kept on giving evasive answers throughout the entire cross examination. It suggests that the witness was not having the knowledge of the facts of this case i.e. about the transaction in question, nor he made any efforts to apprise himself before entering the witness box. The ignorance of CW1 further continues and he was unable to tell the rate of interest in case of default. He was also unable to tell that out of the cheque amount, what was on account of interest. Later on, on 23.02.2012, when the witness was again recalled for cross examination, he had produced a photocopy of the CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 15 of 23 chit agreement which was marked as Mark X. He admitted that the chit agreement does not contain signatures of the accused on each and every page. He also admitted that the name of the other members were not mentioned in the chit agreement.
14 A mere perusal of the cross examination of CW1 shows that the witness had given most evasive reply to the questions put forth by the ld defence Counsel. The witness was even not able to answer as to the total amount(installments) so far paid by the accused and the total amount ie (installments) outstanding on the accused. Cross-examination of CW 1 shows that his testimony was vague in nature , was inadequate and was bereft of the necessary details regarding the transaction. Neither in the complaint nor in the evidence, there is hardly any averment as to how a sum of Rs. 255, 228/- was outstanding on the part of the accused. The complainant was under a duty to have produced in his evidence the entire details of the transaction ie. The total amount disbursed, payment received from the accused, balance recoverable from the accused including the principle and interest part. These details were available with the complainant which they have withheld from the Court. It is no doubt true that court is not here determining the civil liability of CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 16 of 23 accused, however, in a case where the quantum of liability is disputed by the accused and the same is within the knowledge of the complainant, the complainant ought to have produced those documents/evidence as they were relevant facts to determine the issue in hand.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed reliance upon various decision and it is contended that in the present case the complainant is not at all entitled to avail the benefit of presumption under the Act. Reliance is placed upon the following decision.
I. G. Gopan Vs. Tony Verghese and Another (2008) (1) DCR 363 Kerala High Court wherein it was held "it is true that when the cheque in question contain the signature of account holder it is for the accused to explain the same, but merely because the cheque contained the signature of account holder or the accused, it cannot be said the same was executed by him. In this case it is relevant to note that the accused has specifically denied the execution of the cheque and the case advanced by him is that the cheque was entrusted with the complainant and the cheque contained more than his signature". (Para No. 12) In the above noted case it was brought out in the evidence that the complainant was himself not aware of the actual transaction, he was not aware as to who has filled CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 17 of 23 up the cheque, he does not know the author of the handwriting on the cheque, when the cheque was issued and on these lacunas, the Hon'ble High Court had held that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and the complainant had failed to prove its case.
II. Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance upon another decision of the same High Court in the matter of Santhi Vs. Mary Sherly (2013) (1) DCR 385 it was held that "mere production and marking of the cheque as an exhibit in a case, however, will not prove that the cheque is drawn by the accused. The factum of drawing or execution of the cheque has to be proved by evidence of a person who can vouch safe for the truths of the facts in law". (As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birender Kumar Jaiswal (2003) (8) SCC 745).
The aforesaid decision is germane to the case in hand as one can see from the cross examination of CW1, that the witness has stated that "the cheque in question was not handed over in my presence. It is correct that I am not sure whether the cheque in question was handed over to the company. I am not aware as to who has filled up CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 18 of 23 the details on the cheque in question. I cannot say whether the signature and the details have been filled up in two different handwritings. It is wrong to suggest that the cheque in question was handed over in blank and the rest of the details were filled up by the complainant company itself. I do not know who has filled up the details on the cheque". From the aforesaid answers it is implicit that there is no legal evidence placed on record to prove the execution of the cheque towards the full and final settlement of the chit fund amount. In the absence of the basic averments the case of the complainant stands on a weak pedestal. The complainant had not examined any other witness to prove its case and the testimony of complainant witness is insufficient to sustain the complainant version.
15 The accused in my opinion has been able to discharge the mandatory presumptions by discrediting the testimony of CW1 through his cross examination. Now it is well settled for discharging the presumption. It is not mandatory for the accused to enter the witness box and the presumptions under the Act can be discharged by leading direct or indirect evidence. It was the defence of the accused that the cheque in question was given as a blank signed cheque for the CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 19 of 23 purpose of security before disbursal of chit amount. There is nothing unusual in this defence.
16 In the course of argument, ld Counsel for the complainant had argued that the accused had not produced any receipt to show that he had made the entire payment of the chit fund amount and therefore an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused. However, I am not in agreement with the aforesaid contention raised by ld Counsel for the complainant. It is well settled principle of criminal law that to prove its case the prosecution/complainant has to stand on its own legs and the prosecution/complainant cannot base their case solely on the weakness of the plea raised by the accused. Merely on the basis of presumptions an accused cannot be convicted and the court is required to see the broad probabilities of the case keeping in view the entire testimony of the parties. The non production of relevant documents, which were exclusively in the custody of the complainant leads to drawing of an adverse inference.
17.Before concluding it is also pertinent to note here that the ld Counsel for the accused has raised a plea that the CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 20 of 23 complaint was not filed by the Authorized person. No doubt this plea was not taken in the cross-examination of CW1, however, as the same is a legal issue going to the root of the matter, thus the Court is required to consider the same as it has a bearing on the maintainability of the complaint. The present complaint was filed by CW 1 Rajeev Sharma who has placed reliance upon the Power of Attorney exhibited as CW1/A. As per the power of attorney one Sh A. M. Gopalan who is stated to be a Managing Director of the complainant has executed the attorney in favour of Sh. Rajeev Sharma and the later has been authorized to represent the company in litigation. Perusal of the Power of Attorney Ex.CW1/A shows that it was executed by Shri A.M. Gopalan who is the Managing Director of the complainant and the same was executed on behalf of the company, subsequent to a Board Resolution passed by Board of Directors on a meeting held on 06/10/2008. However, the said Board Resolution has not been placed on record. This defect was not cured by the complainant even at the stage of trial. Although at the final stage of argument, the Counsel for the complainant had moved an application to place on record the incorporation certificate, however, the same does not cures the aforesaid defect. Thus, it has not been proved that the executant of CW1/A i.e. Mr. A.M. Gopalan was himself competent to have authorized the AR Rajiv Sharma to CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 21 of 23 file the present complaint case on behalf of the company as no Board Resolution nor any articles of association has been placed on record to show that Shri A.M. Gopalan was authorized by the Board of Directors or by way of article of association. Ld Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon following decisions.
1 M. G Brothers Automobiles Ltd Vs. B . M. Reddy 2006 (2) CCC 696(AP).
2 Ashok Bampto Vs. Agencia Real Canacona Pvt Ltd 2008 (1) DCR 2011(Bombay High Court) In the aforesaid cases, it was held that an individual Director, has no power to act on behalf of the company. He is only one of a body of Directors called the Board of Directors and alone he has no power except as deligated to him by Board of Directors or by way of Article of Association of the Company. In the present complaint case, complainant has not filed any Board Resolution nor they have filed the articles of Association to show that Sh. Gopala was competent to have authorized Sh Rajiv Sharma to file and prosecute the present complaint.
18.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the testimony of CW1 has CC No 4455/10 Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 22 of 23 been seriously demolished by way of his cross examination. The witness does not inspire the confidence of the court and his testimony has been discredited. This fact coupled with the non production of relevant records is fatal to the case of the complainant.
19.In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and accordingly benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Accused Karan Singh is hereby acquitted of the offence. Bail bond and surety bond, if any, stands cancelled. Endorsement, if any, be also canceled. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court
on 11th September 2013 (AMIT ARORA)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
DWARKA COURT:NEW DELHI
CC No 4455/10
Sri Gokula Chit & Finance (P)Ltd Vs. Karan Singh page 23 of 23