Delhi District Court
M.R. Bansal vs . Tek Chand on 4 April, 2013
M.R. Bansal Vs. Tek Chand CC No.3187/10 04.04.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel..
Process Server Ct. Dhiraj absent despite service.
A BW in the sum of Rs.2,000/- be issued against him for 25.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R At this stage, Ct. Dhiraj Kumar appeared.
Direction of BW recalled. He is bound down for the next date.
List on date fixed i.e. 25.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R Bakshi Bros. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Alarms & ElectronicsPvt. Ltd.&Anr.
CC No.6616/A/12 04.04.2013 Statement of Mr. K. Kumar, AR of the Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the Complainant do hereby state on behalf of the Complainant that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in Mediation Cell in the present complaint case. Accused has given the entire settled amount to the Complainant as per Mediation agreement. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused as nothing remains due towards the accused in the present complaint case. 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 03.04.2013 R Bakshi Bros. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Modern Alarms & ElectronicsPvt. Ltd.&Anr.
CC No.6616/A/12 03.04.2013 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Accused No.2 with counsel.
Matter 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, if any, be discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
03.04.2013 R
Parminder Singh Vs. Vijay Sethi
CC No.6903/12
04.04.2013
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Summons unserved.
A bare perusal of the report goes to show that accused has been deliberately avoiding the summons.
In such circumstances, let BW in the sum of Rs.5,000/- be issued against the accused for 26.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R M/s R.S. Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Dewan Chand CC No.6815/12 04.04.2013 Present: Sh. Rajender Jaggi, Director of Complainant company in person.
Accused Vikram is present with counsel, however, ld. counsel has not filed any Vakalatnama.
BW duly executed.
Accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of Bail Bond and Surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that accused is not able to furnish surety today as he was not aware about the fact that he may be required to produce surety. As prayed, personal bond is accepted till the next date.
At request of the parties, matter be sent to Mediation Cell for today itself at 02.00 p.m. returnable on 15.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R M/s Agrico Organics Ltd. Vs. M/s Gayatri Industries Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.3145/10 & 3151/10
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that he has filed necessary process fee for summoning of the witness.
However, there is no report in respect of issuance of summons.
Let the Ahlmad to clarify the report. Summons be, however, issued to the witness.
An application has been filed by the accused for issuance of directions to the Complainant to submit accounts pertaining to accused company for the period starting from 25.10.2005 to 06.06.2006. He has supplied a copy of the application to the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Ld. counsel for the Complainant want to file reply of this application List on 18.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Ms. Bhavna Aggarwal Vs. Sanjay Bhatia
CC No.5554/11
04.04.2013
Statement of Ms. Bhavna Aggarwal (recalled for further cross-examination vide order dated 23.02.2012).
XXXXX by Mr. J.K. Tripathi, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. My father was running Yarn business before forming the Brijdham Society at Doriwalan, Karol Bagh but I do not remember the property number wherein the said business was running. I cannot tell the period of running the said business by my father. I also do not know the number and names of employees working with my father. It is wrong to suggest that Jatin was ever working with my father during the course of the business of yarn.
Q. I put it to you that earlier you have stated that you do not know the number and names of employees working with your father and on the basis of which you are denying the fact that Jatin was not working with your father during his course of business of yarn. What do you have to say ?
Ans. I know this fact as the said Jatin was working with Sanjay Bhati.
Before joining the Brijdham Society, I was not aware about the kind of business running by Sanjay Bhatia. I never visited the place of business of Sanjay Bhatia or ever met with the employees of Mr. Bhatia before joining the Brijdham Society. Before joining the Brijdham Society, I was not aware about the whereabouts of Jatin where he was working before inducting as a member of Brijdham Society. I do not have any idea whether the forming of Brijdham Society was suggested by my father with his initial ideas and contributed with his employees familiar friends etc. Q. I put it to you that your father has proposed and offered Mr. Sanjay Bhatia to become President of Brijdham Society and he himself chosen to be Vice-President of the Brijdham Society. What do you have to say ?
Ans. I do not have any idea whether my father has proposed Sh. Sanjay Bhatia to become President of Brijdham Society or not but my father was never joined the society as Vice-President.
It is wrong to suggest that Jatin was proposed by my father for the post of Cashier in Brijdham Society. Mr. Jatin was not loyal to my father. It is correct that to operate an account of Brijdham Society, three officials i.e. President, Secretary and Cashier were nominated. Out of these three officials, the signatures of two officials are mandatory for which the witness has noded in positive that Cashier's signature is necessary. I issued the cheque in the name of Brijdham Society and Himachal Society drawn on the Vaish Cooperative Bank, Kamla Nagar. I do not remember the exact number of cheques as well as its amount but it might be 5 or 6 cheques. I do not remember the series of cheque leaves. I am an Income Tax Payee. I have shown the said transaction in my Income Tax Return. I can produce the same, if required. I made total payments to the Societies through cheques. I paid Rs.4,75,000/- to Brijdham Society and an amount of Rs.65,000/- to Himachal Society. I do not remember in how much cheque leaves, I issued the cheque amount of Rs.4,75,000/- and Rs.65,000/-. My father had informed me about the project of Birjdham Society in Gurgaon. I handed over the above said cheques to my father. I do not have any idea whether my relatives who were members of Brijdham Society handed over cheques to my father or not. I have no idea whether the society has purchased any land in Gurgaon or not. I also do not know whether the society has initiated the project in Himachal Pradesh or not. It is wrong to suggest that any land was purchased in Shimla District of Himachal Pradesh in the name of Brijdham Society and Himachal Society by my father with the consent of all the executive members of the societies. It is correct that a sample flat was built up, well furnished at the said land and in inaugural function was conducted at Shimla. It is also correct that I alongwith my family members have attended the said inaugural function. It is wrong to suggest that the function had been going on for four days. (Vol. The said function was for two days). It is wrong to suggest that my father had hosted the said inaugural function. It is wrong to suggest that my father had remained there for making arrangements of the said inaugural function for 15 days. (Vol. But he remained there for some days but I do not remember the number of days of his stay at Shimla for the purpose of arrangements of function). I do not have any idea that all the members were invited on the invitation of my father. Approximately 15-20 persons were present in that inaugural function at Shimla. Three members of my family were present in that function i.e. myself, my daughter and my husband. From the family of my father there were only two persons who had joined the function i.e. my father and my mother. As I remember, my maternal aunt i.e. Mami alongwith her children and my brother in law (Jija) were present in that inaugural function but my sister was not present in that function. I do not remember whether my maternal uncle was present in that function or not. I do not have any idea whether there were 160 to 170 persons in that function or not. I do not have any idea whether separate hotel rooms were booked for all the persons or not but it is correct that for my relatives separate hotel rooms were booked. It is correct that construction work was going on in Shimla on the land purchased by the Society but I do not remember whether the said construction work was going on under the supervision of my father. The said inaugural function was organized in December 2007. I do not know the date of starting and closing of construction on the said land. I do not have any idea whether the construction work on the said land was continued till December 2008. It is correct that in December 2008, some of the investors had made complaints against my father Sh. R.P. Bansal, Sh. Sanjay Bhaita, my sister Smt. Arti Gupta and Jatin. It is correct that on the basis of said complaints an FIR was registered in PS : Rajauri Garden in the year 2008. I do not have any idea whether the complainants in the above said FIR were my father's relatives or not. I do not know whether all the complainants were made as Primary members by my father or not but some of them were made primary members in the societies by my father. It is correct that the said land situtated in Shimla was made as case property in the said FIR. It is correct that for the purchase of the said land situated at Shimla, the societies entered in an agreement with the owner of the land but I do not know whether Final Title Deeds were prepared or not.
Cross-examination deferred at lunch time.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Ms. Bhavna Aggarwal Vs. Sanjay Bhatia
CC No.5554/11
04.04.2013
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Complainant further cross-examined. Cross-examination deferred at lunch time.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that he is not available after lunch time as he has to appear in other court in some other case.
At request of both the ld. counsels, list for further cross-examination on 13.05.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Jagdish Chand Kohli Vs. R.K. Jain & Ors.
CC No.7460/13 & 7461/13
04.04.2013
File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Complainant in person.
Let earlier orders be complied with for 14.08.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Ravi Jindal Vs. Sanjay Kumar
CC No.7462/13 & 7463/13
04.04.2013
File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: None.
These are two connected matters.
A Notice be issued to both the sides for 25.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R At this stage, accused appeared with his counsel.
List on date fixed i.e. 25.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R Satvir Aggarwal Vs. M/s Shivam Collection CC No.7468/13 04.04.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Proxy Counsel for the Complainant.
Let earlier orders be complied with for 14.08.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R Mrs. Sunita Rani Jindal Vs. Anirudh Banerjee CC No.7469/13 04.04.2013 File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Son of the Complainant.
Let earlier orders be complied with for 13.08.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Vijay Kumar Handa Vs. Gulshan Kumar
CC No.7471/13
04.04.2013
File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Parties in person.
Counsels are not available. Whereas matter is at the stage of further cross- examination of the Complainant.
Adjourned to 03.06.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Vishal Kapoor Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma
CC No.7472/13
04.04.2013
File received by way of transfer. It be checked and registered.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
It appears that two envelopes are available on record. The report on one envelope is not clear and there is no report on the second envelope. Both the envelopes appear to be issued from Ld. Predecessor Courts for earlier occasions. Let Ahlmad to check and report whether the second envelope was sent to the Postal Department or not.
Let summons be issued in terms of earlier orders for 22.08.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Kapil Khanijo Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma
CC No.7401/13 & 7402/13
04.04.2013
File taken up on preponement application.
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
These are two connected matters.
A Notice of this application be issued to the accused for 30.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R M/s Mico Wires Vs. M/s Super Cab Cables Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.1146/1004.04.2013 File taken up on an application for discharge of surety and return of FDR.
Present: Surety Sravan Kumar with Counsel.
It appears that matter has already been disposed of and bonds have been discharged vide order dated 15.03.2012.
Surety Sravan Kumar submits that he stoods surety for accused No.4 P.K. Srivastava and had filed two Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs.10,000/- each. He prays for release of both the Kisan Viksa Patra.
Let both the KVPs be returned to him after all due formalities.
Application disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Sunil Sharma Vs. Anil Sharma
CC No.6629/12
04.04.2013
File taken up upon producing bail bond and surety bond.
Present: Accused with counsel.
Ld. counsel submits that accused has come to know about BW in the present case and, therefore, he wants to furnish bail bond and surety bond. Ld. counsel prays for admission of accused on bail. This is the first appearance of the accused and offence is bailable one, the accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety to the tune of Rs.1 lac. Furnished. Accepted. BW stands recalled.
List dated fixed i.e. 08.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R M/s Alstone International Vs. Alu Glaze Tech & Ors.
CC No.6851/1204.04.2013 File taken up again in after lunch session on an application of accused for filing of affidavit.
Present: Both the accused in person.
It appears that in the morning the ld. counsel for the accused had made a submission that police official had taken Rs.20,000/- from the accused in the name of furnishing bail bond and that accused would be filing affidavit in this respect. Accused persons now submit that they have filed their respective affidavits with this application.
This is a very serious matter. Let this Ct. Bharthai, No.2563/C as mentioned in the affidavit be called. Let this application be listed on 06.04.2013 at 02.00 p.m. as accused submit that their counsel will be available on that day. Accused further submit that they are resident of Chennari, therefore, are unable to appear on that day.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R N.C. Kansil and Sons Vs. M/s Petals Distributor & Anr.
CC No.7084/A/12 04.04.2013 File taken up again in after lunch session on an application moved on behalf of the accused for filing of exemption application.
Present: Counsel for the accused on Memo of Appearance.
Exemption application taken on record.
List on date fixed i.e. 22.07.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Kusum Jhanji Vs. Kailash Jhanji
CC No.665/10
04.04.2013
Order:
This order shall dispose of an application moved by the accused to seek permission to take expert handwriting opinion in defence. Both the sides have already been heard.
It appears that opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed on 07.10.2011 but later on upon an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. accused was allowed to examine two witnesses. It appears that accused had confronted two documents i.e. Exh.CW1/X1 and Exh.CW1/X2 to the Complainant during her cross-examination and the Complainant had denied her signature thereon. Despite that the accused chose not to examine any handwriting expert in defence. However, the Complainant applied for permission to examine handwriting expert but the application was dismissed and matter was adjourned for final arguments. Later on the Ld. Revisional Court granted opportunity to the Complainant to examine handwriting expert. This handwriting expert was also cross- examined by the accused. Thereafter supplementary statement of accused was recorded in which accused claimed that handwriting expert report is false. The accused then filed an application for seeking handwriting expert opinion.
I consider that this application cannot be allowed. One handwriting expert has already given his opinion and he has been cross-examined by the accused. The probative value of the evidence has to be decided by the court at the final judgment and cannot be decided by any party. If such applications are allowed, no trial would come to an end. Opportunity was available with the accused to take any expert opinion when the complainant had denied her signatures. Such opinion would have taken by the accused and be produced in defence but the accused chose not to do so. Only when the Complainant examined a handwriting expert, the accused moved this application. No explanation has been provided by the accused as to why this application could not be moved earlier. The application is dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
State Vs. Jogender Pal Singh
FIR No.42/12
PS : Darya Ganj
U/s 420/467/471 IPC
04.04.2013
This is an application for taking specimen signature and handwriting of accused.
Present: Accused in JC with IO SI Manoj Kumar.
It appears that the application was moved before Sh. Ashu Garg, Ld. MM on 01.04.2013. IO submits that on 01.04.2013 and the same was directed to be placed before the Ld. Link MM on the same at 02.00 p.m. IO submits that the 1st Link MM on that day was proceeded to conduct TIP, therefore, he appeared before the Ld. Link MM of the 1st Link who ordered to place the application before the concerned Link on 02.04.2013. On 02.02.2013 this application was placed before me being 1st Link MM and thereupon Production Warrant was directed to be issued against the accused.
Today accused has been produced from the Jail. IO has taken signatures of accused on three and handwriting of accused on five pages. Original be given to the IO against acknowledgment. Let a copy of all the eight pages be retained with the application and be sent to the concerned court alongwith this order.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
04.04.2013 R
Kusum Jhanji Vs. Kailash Jhanji
CC No.665/10
04.04.2013
Present: Counsel for the Complainant.
Accused in person.
Vide separate order, the application of accused for handwriting expert opinion is dismissed. Accused submits that no other witness is to be examined in defence.
Matter is listed for final arguments on 16.04.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 04.04.2013 R