Delhi District Court
Ms. Asha Goel vs . Ashok Kumar on 30 October, 2012
Ms. Asha Goel Vs. Ashok Kumar
CC No.2309/10
30.10.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Be awaited for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
At 02.32 p.m.
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
The complaint is dismissed.
Accused is acquitted.
Bonds discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Babu Lal Jain Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sachdeva
CC No.4325/10
30.10.2012
Present: LR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
Matter is at the stage of cross-examination.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused is seeking a passover.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
At 12.58 p.m.
Present: Both the sides with their counsels.
They submit that matter has been settled.
They seek one weeks time to file Settlement Deed.
List on 07.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Pritpal Singh Vs. M/s Denim Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.6592/12
30.10.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused No.2 in person.
Accused No.2 is seeking a passover for want of his counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
At 02.29 p.m.
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused No.2 with counsel.
Accused has filed Bail Bond and Surety Bond. Accepted.
Warrant of Attachment against accused company unexecuted. Let details be filed by the
complainant. It appears that an application U/s 145(2) has been filed by accused No.2.
Ld. counsel for the complainant was earlier present but he is not present now.
Complainant submits that he is willing for cross-examination. He, however, submits that his
counsel has gone to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
In such circumstances, matter be adjourned to 12.12.2012.
At request of both the sides, list on 10.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Mohd. Amaan Vs. M/s Gulati Retail India Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6692/12
30.10.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
One Shakeel Ahmed appeared and submits that he is clerk of Advocate Sh. Rajender Pal
Singh who will represent the accused persons. He submits that ld. counsel is coming.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
At this stage,
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed his Memo of Appearance and has also filed one
exemption application on behalf of all the accused on the ground that they are out of station for
some family matter.
Ld. Counsel for the accused, however, submits that accused will be present on the next
date.
List on 03.12.2102.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Deepak Jaitly
CC No.6469/12
30.10.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Processes be awaited.
Fresh process be issued for 25.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Amit Gulati Vs. Kartar Singh
CC No.1886/10
30.10.2012
Present: None.
In view of Ld. Revisional Court order dated 22.09.2012 nothing survives in the present
case.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
M/s Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. Vs. Surender Malik
CC No.1377/11
30.10.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Let a Notice be issued to the complainant for 04.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Bajrang Aggarwal Vs. M/s Balaji Enterprises & Anr.
CC No.6773/12
30.10.2012
Present: None.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 04.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. M/s Sri Lakshmi Sreenivasa Pesticides & Seeds & Ors.
CC No.5348/11
30.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
Process be awaited.
A report be called from the concerned police station for 21.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
The Citizen Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Guru Dutt
CC No.4245/10
30.10.2012
Present: None.
Process be awaited.
Process Server be called for 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Harsh Chand Vs. Ms. Saira Khatoon & Ors.
CC No.6687/12
30.10.2012
Present: None.
There is no compliance of last order.
Be complied with for 16.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Kailash Chand Vs. Raj Kumar
CC No.1489/10
30.10.2012
Present: None.
Notice issued to the complainant has not been received back till date.
Fresh Notice be issued to the complainant at the earliest for 21.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
M/s Bioworld Merchandising (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Look (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6350/11
30.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused on Memo of Appearance.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed an exemption application on behalf of J. Gupta on
the ground that he is a resident of Mumbai and that the matter is to be compromised within a
weeks time. He further submits that the second Director is out of India and has left the company.
The complainant submits that if the accused makes the payment, he does not have any objection
in respect of exemption.
At request of ld. counsel for the accused, list on 16.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
M/s Fil Industries Ltd. (Complainant).
CC No.6748/12 & 6747/12
30.10.2012
Present: None.
These are two matters of the complainant.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 05.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
M/s Gurdayal & Sons Vs. Mayur Print House
CC No.6422/11
30.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Ld. counsel submits that matter is likely to be compromised and, therefore, ld. counsel is
seeking time.
At his request, list on 13.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
M/s Hari Ram Gulab Rai Vs. Ms. Neelam Dhawan
CC No.6453/11
30.10.2012
Present: None.
Summons be awaited.
Fresh summons be also issued through all available modes for 15.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
M/s J.C. Trading Company Vs. M/s Grafik Print Pack Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6264/11
30.10.2012
Present: None.
It appears that matter has been settled in Mediation Cell and today is listed for realization
of payment.
Let adjourned to 30.11.2012 for appearance of the parties.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
M/s M.B. Plastic Industries Vs. M/s V.P. Diagnostics & Anr.
CC No.6211/11
30.10.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
NBW issued against the accused received back unexecuted.
A bare perusal of the report goes to show that accused is deliberately hiding herself. This
fact is very much clear from the statement dated 28.07.2012 of Virender Kumar i.e. the husband
of the accused wherein he had undertaken to bring the accused in the court on fixed date i.e.
01.08.2012. Whereas the report on NBW is based upon oral statement of the said Virender
Kumar stating that the accused is residing with her father for the last one year.
In the circumstances, let a Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
Despite service of notice, Surety is absent. Clearly he does not want to justify his cause.
Attachment Warrant for recovery of surety bond amount be issued against the Surety.
List on 19.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
M?s Super Hoze Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jain Enterprises
CC No.6882/12
30.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Respondent absent.
Notice not received back.
Fresh Notice be issued to the Respondent for 11.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Neeraj Jain Vs. M/s Gromax Infonet Ltd.
CC No.1982/10
30.10.2012
Present: None.
Process be awaited.
Let Process Served be called in terms of earlier orders.
List on 22.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Praveen Kumar Mahajan Vs. Rajiv Luthra CC No.652/10 30.10.2012 Present: None.
Summons issued to the accused unserved.
Fresh summons be only issued if detailed and fresh address of the accused is filed by the complainant and a report is submitted by the complainant about the cost imposed on 10.07.2012.
List on 15.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Raj Kumar Vs. Sanjay Gupta
CC No.4089/10
30.10.2012
Present: None.
Notice issued to the ld. counsel for the complainant received back unserved with a report no such Advocate in the Chamber.
Notice issued to the complainant received back unserved with a report Band rehta hai.
No one has been appearing on behalf of complainant for the last several dates. It is for the litigants to follow their cases diligently.
State should not be burdened with such litigations.
The case is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Ravinder Pal Singh Vs. Meenakshi Marwah CC No.2557/10, 2531/10 & 2551/10 30.10.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
One Deepak appeared and submits that he is Clerk of Advocate of accused. He has also filed one exemption application on the ground that accused is suffering from Fever. In my considered view, appearance of any clerk is completely derogative to the legal profession. Such practice should be curbed at the earliest.
These are three connected matters and Parcha Yaddasts have been placed as the files are before the Ld. Revisional Court. Accused is directed to appear in person.
Adjourned to 06.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Ravinder Singh Vs. Rajesh Gothwal
CC No.3051/10
30.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
Ld. Counsel submits that accused has not paid the amount.
A Notice be issued to the accused for 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Sanjeev Enterprises Vs. Ms. Madhu Aggarwal & Anr.
CC No.5207/10 & 5201/10
30.10.2012
Present: None.
These are two connected matters.
Copies of NBW received back with a report the Police officials have sent the same to the Police Department in Mumbai.
Let the Warrants be awaited for 10.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Sanjeev Malhotra Vs. Jaswinder Singh CC No.3757/10 30.10.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Constable Rakesh Kumar is present, however, HC Raj Kumar is not present.
Let both the Process Servers be called.
NBW against Surety Navneet Singh unexecuted.
Fresh NBW be issued against the Surety in terms of earlier order.
List on 01.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Ajay Dhaka Vs. Mohan Lal Makhija
CC No.1460/10
30.10.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. counsel for the accused submits that the defence witness Puneet Makhija is suffering from Viral Fever and, therefore, could not come. He has filed a medical paper in this respect.
It appears that this witness is on cross-examination.
At joint request of both the sides, adjourned to 15.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Ritesh Khullar Vs. Vinod Kumar Handa & Anr.
CC No.6596/1230.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Ritesh Khullar, Complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused in full and final settlement in the present complaint case with respect to the cheque in question. Today, accused has made the entire settlement amount of Rs.1,05,000/- to me in cash. I have no further grievance against the accused as nothing remains due towards the accused in the present complaint case.
I have brought with me photocopy of Driving Licence bearing No.P03012005438720 issued by Transport Department - National Capital Territory of Delhi which is Mark-X (OSR).
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 30.10.2012 M/s Souvenir Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Palanisamy CC No.4745/10 30.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
However, one Advocate Sh. Satya Dev Kumar appeared on behalf of accused but no Vakalatnama has been filed.
Last opportunity is given to the accused to appear in person.
List on 15.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Surender Bansal Vs. Dilshad Hussain
CC No.1341/10
30.10.2012
Statement of Constable Sonu Rana, No.716/N, PS : Kashmere Gate, Delhi. On S.A. On 14.07.2012 to execute Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. on the accused Dilshad Hussain, I went to the address given in the process where I met with one Akbar Ali who is brother of the accused and recorded his statement i.e. Mark-X. As per the said Akbar Ali, the accused had already left the address. I made announcement by beating drum in the public and I also affixed a copy of notice on the gate of this said address. I also affixed a copy of the process on the Notice Board of the concerned court. My report is Mark-X1 having signature at Point A. This is my true and correct statement.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Tajinder Pal Vs. Shami Traika
CC No.6561/12
30.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons unserved with a report no such person.
Fresh summons be issued on filing of fresh address for 02.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Vikas Jain Vs. Ravi Kumar CC No.4107/10 30.10.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Summons issued to the accused received back unserved with the report no such person.
The second summons received back served by way of affixation.
In view of all the reports, fresh summons be only issued if complainant files fresh address of the accused.
List on 16.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Surender Bansal Vs. Dilshad Hussain
CC No.1341/10
30.10.2012
Present: None.
Constable Sonu is present.
His statement in respect of execution of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. recorded.
It is declared that proclamation was published on 14.07.2012 against the accused as required U/s 82 (2) (i) Cr.P.C. The accused by his non appearance committed an offence U/s 174A first part IPC. A copy of this order be sent to the SHO alongwith a copy of statement of Constable Sonu so that SHO can take appropriate steps.
A Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 07.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Ritesh Khullar Vs. Vinod Kumar Handa & Anr.
CC No.6596/12
30.10.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
The matter is settled between the parties.
Separate statement of complainant recorded in this respect.
As per statement of complainant has received Rs.1,05,000/- from the accused.
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 30.10.2012 M/s RR Investors Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Raj Oils Mills Ltd.
CC No.6730/1230.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Rakesh Gulati, AR of the Complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused company in full and final settlement in the present complaint case with respect to the cheque in question. Accused company has made the entire settlement amount of Rs.3,69,095/- i.e. the cheque amount in question to me. Complainant company has no further grievance against the accused as nothing remains due towards the accused company 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 30.10.2012 I.P.M.T. Educational Institute Vs. Pradeep Dabas CC No.2218/10 30.10.2012 Present: Proxy counsels on both the sides.
Exemption applications have been filed respectively on behalf of AR of the complainant and accused.
Despite service of Show Cause Notice, the Manager of the Bank failed to appear.
One Vinod Kalra, Clerk from the PNB is present and submits that Manager is on leave today. He, however, does not have any explanation for non appearance of anyone on earlier occasions. He submits that he has brought a computerized copy. This, however, is not certified in accordance with Bankers Books Evidence Act.
Let the same filed as per law. Concerned Manager shall also show sufficient cause for his earlier non appearance.
List on 11.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Kapila Engineers Vs. M/s D.S.C. Ltd. & Ors. CC No. 30.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused No.4 with counsel.
Accused No.4 is also representing the accused No.1 company by filing an Extract of Board Resolution. Exemption applications have been filed on behalf of other two accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused further submits that matter is in the process of settlement. Ld. counsel for the accused has handed over a Demand Draft of Rs.18,20,000/- to the AR of the complainant. Copy of the same taken on record. Ld. Counsel for the accused assures that remaining payment of this case alongwith the payment of another case pending in this court will be paid to the complainant within one month.
At request, list on 30.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s RR Investors Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Raj Oils Mills Ltd.
CC No.6730/1230.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of AR recorded in this respect.
As per statement, AR has received cheque amount of Rs.3,69,095/- from the accused.
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
30.10.2012
Ashok Kumar Taparia Vs. Girdhari Lal
CC No.1173/10
30.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed certified copies of his earlier complaint.
I have heard both the sides.
The matter was at the stage of final arguments when application U/s 145(2) NI Act r/w Section-311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused for recalling the complainant for cross-examination. It appears that the basic ground taken by the accused is that these cheques were subject matter of an earlier complaint filed by the complainant which was dismissed by Ld. MM, Delhi. Today, the complainant has filed certified copies of the said proceedings. Last lines of Paragraph-6 of the said complaint show that the said case was based only upon two cheques though all the four cheques were mentioned in the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that complainant had filed a Revision Petition against the said order wherein he had shown all the four cheques. Ld. counsel for the complainant, however, submits that the said Revision Petition was filed in the year 2008 and copies of the instant cheques were also filed in view of the fact that all the four cheques were mentioned in the complaint. He further submits that the original two cheques were already filed in the instant complaint in the year 2003.
It appears that both the complaints were filed in the year 2003. If two instant cheques were filed in the present case, there is no question of the complainant filing the same two cheques in another complaint filed in the same year. The circumstances go to show that complainant had mentioned all the four cheques in both the complaints and filed two cheques in each case. The another case was dismissed in default whereas this case is continuing. Being satisfied on this point, I do not find any reason to allow the application of accused. It is pertinent to note that on earlier occasion, an application filed by the accused U/s 145(2) NI Act was dismissed on 28.04.2011 whereafter opportunity was further given to the accused to lead defence evidence but the accused failed to lead any defence evidence and consequently on 08.05.2012 opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed and further opportunities were given to the parties to advance arguments but after some dates, accused filed the instant application. No doubt Section-311 Cr.P.C. is worded in very wide terms. However, it should not be used when the party has delayed the matter with a very considerable extent and where conduct of the accused has not been upto the mark. Even further there is specific provision for cross-examination of complainant as provided in Section-145(2) NI Act. If specific provisions are available on statutes book for a specific purpose, Section-311 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked for the very same purpose. Even further Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has provided the stage when application U/s 145(2) NI Act can be filed (see Rajesh Agarwal v State & Another 171(2010) DLT 51). At the stage of final arguments, application U/s 145(2) NI Act cannot be filed and Section-311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in view of the above discussion. The application is dismissed.
Matter pertains to the year 2003.
List for final arguments on 07.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Aditya International Vs. ANCL & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.6634/1230.10.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
At request of both the parties, file be placed before the Mediation Cell for 02.11.2012 at 02.00 p.m. Regular date of hearing is 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s J.S. Engineers Vs. ANCL & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.6652/1230.10.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
At request of both the parties, file be placed before the Mediation Cell for 02.11.2012 at 02.00 p.m. Regular date of hearing is 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. M/s Mallikarjuna Agro Chemicals & Anr.
CC No.2598/1030.10.2012 Statement of Head Constable Rajender Singh, No.1193, PS : Moti Nagar, Delhi. On S.A. On 22.04.2012 to execute Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. on the accused K. Mallikarjuna Reddy, I went to the address given in the process where I received information from land lord Sanmukha that that the accused had already left the address. I made announcement by beating drum in the public and I also affixed a copy of notice on the main gate of this said address. I also affixed a copy of the process on the Notice Board of the concerned court. My report is Mark-X having signature at Point A. This is my true and correct statement. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Micro Computers World Vs. Jaspreet Singh CC No.4732/10 30.10.2012 Statement of Head Constable Chet Lal, No.371, PS : Ashok Vihar, Delhi. On S.A. On 09.09.2012 to execute Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. on the accused Jaspreet Singh, I went to the address given in the process where I met with one Satpal Kaur, who is mother of the accused and recorded her statement i.e. Mark-X. As per the said Satpal Kaur, the accused had gone to Bangalore. I made announcement by beating drum in the public and I also affixed a copy of notice on the main gate of this said address. I also affixed a copy of the process on the Notice Board of the concerned court. My report is Mark-X1 having signature at Point A. This is my true and correct statement.
RO & AC
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rajesh Jain
CC No.6247/11
30.10.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused.
It appears that accused is deliberately delaying the matter.
On the last date, ld. counsel for the accused had taken time to advance argument on the issue that even a relative of accused can appear on behalf of the accused. Today, however, ld. counsel for the accused himself is not present. A bare perusal of the file shows the delaying tactics on the part of accused. However, since accused is suffering from Cancer I am not inclined to issued coercive process against him. One more opportunity is given to ld. counsel for the accused to appear and participate in the proceedings. A cost of Rs.3,000/- is imposed upon the accused to be deposited within five days with DLSA.
List on 08.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Sandeep Maan Vs. Satish Chander
CC No.2334/10
30.10.2012
Present: None.
Warrant of Attachment unexecuted.
Let fresh Warrant of Attachment be issued with a specific direction to the police official to attach the KVPs of the Surety.
It appears that copies of KVPs were filed by the Surety.
List on 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Bindu Ramanan Vs. Rajesh Kumar
CC No.1375/10 & 1374/10
30.10.2012
Statement of Mr. Dushyant Nayak, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. Without Oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant do hereby state that I have the instructions from the complainant to withdraw both the present complaint cases against the accused since the matters have been amicably settled between the parties in both the present complaint cases with respect to the cheques in question. I have received Rs.50,000/- from the accused. In such manner, Complainant company has received the entire settlement amount in both the cases. I have instructions from the complainant to compound these cases. Therefore, both these two cases 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 30.10.2012 M/s Bharat Insecticides Ltd. Vs. M/s Mallikarjuna Agro Chemicals & Anr.
CC No.2598/1030.10.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Head Constable Rajender Singh is present.
His statement in respect of execution of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. recorded.
It is declared that proclamation was published on 22.04.2012 against the accused as required U/s 82 (2) (i) Cr.P.C. The accused by his non appearance committed an offence U/s 174A first part IPC. A copy of this order be sent to the SHO alongwith a copy of statement of Head Constable Rajender Singh so that SHO can take appropriate steps.
In view of the report that accused had already left the address several years ago, issuance of Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. would be futile.
Since pre-summoning evidence taken before the Ld. Predecessor in oral form, Proceeding U/s 299 Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Complainant may file his evidence by way of affidavit U/s 145(1) NI Act.
List on 06.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s D.R. Industries Vs. Amit Aggarwal CC No.5906/11, 5903/11, 5901/11, 5902/11, 5933/11 & 5930/11 30.10.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with LAC Sh. N.K. Saraswat.
These are six connected matters.
Earlier on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act, opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine the complainant. However, the said opportunity was not availed of by the accused as he was absent on 02.06.2012 and, therefore, opportunity was closed. However, matter was directed to be listed for defence evidence in terms of Step-III of Rajesh Agarwal v State & Another 171(2010) DLT 51.
The accused instead of taking necessary steps in defence, appeared in person and sought legal aid on state expenses which was allowed. However, again accused did not take any step in defence instead he filed an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of complainant on the ground that earlier ld. counsel had left his case for non payment of fee.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that one opportunity may be given to the accused subject to a cost. I, however, do not find any provision in the Cr.P.C. which empowers a court of criminal jurisdiction to impose any cost while allowing or dismissing any application filed in a case except transfer applications.
However, in view of the no objection of the ld. counsel for the complainant and further considering the fact that earlier ld. counsel for the accused had left the accused and now the accused is being represented by LAC and further that earlier his application U/s 145(2) NI Act was allowed, one opportunity is given to the accused to cross-examine the complainant on the limited points mentioned in his application filed U/s 145(2) NI Act. In the given circumstances, the same shall be last opportunity for the accused. The accused shall further deposit the earlier cost which was imposed on 22.11.2011.
List on 13.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Micro Computers World Vs. Jaspreet Singh CC No.4732/10 30.10.2012 File taken up today since 29.10.2012 was holiday.
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Head Constable Chet Lal is present.
His statement in respect of execution of process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. recorded.
It is declared that proclamation was published on 09.09.2012 against the accused as required U/s 82 (2) (i) Cr.P.C. The accused by his non appearance committed an offence U/s 174A first part IPC. A copy of this order be sent to the SHO alongwith a copy of statement of Head Constable Chet Lal so that SHO can take appropriate steps.
Let a Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 12.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Bindu Ramanan Vs. Rajesh Kumar
CC No.1375/10 & 1374/10
30.10.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Matters have been settled.
Today accused has paid Rs.50,000/- as remaining amount to the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Statement of ld. counsel for the complainant recorded in this respect.
Matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Bonds discharged.
A delayed settlement cost of Rs.5,000/- in each case is imposed on the accused in terms of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Syed Babalal H. AIR 2010 SC 1907 to be deposited within 10 days with DLSA.
List on 16.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Orient Links Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Jallan Diaries CC No.6979/12 30.10.2012 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
This complaint has been filed alongwith affidavit in evidence supported by documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner.
The affidavit is Mark-R for the identification purpose.
Having heard the ld. counsel and having gone through the record, I consider that a case U/s 138 NI Act has been made out against the accused.
Let Summons be issued against the accused for 11.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Mohan Singh Vs. Amandeep Singh
CC No.6982/12
30.10.2012
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
At request, list on 07.11.2012 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Gurmat Pal Singh Vs. Sameer Malhotra
CC No.6983/12
30.10.2012
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. counsel has filed an application for return of original documents. For getting the same to be exhibited by Oath Commissioner.
Let the documents of the complainant as per list of documents alongwith earlier affidavit be returned to the complainant after due formality. For filing the same today itself with fresh affidavit in evidence. Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Parragon Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Binny Traders & Anr.
CC No.6902/1230.10.2012 Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
Ld. counsel has filed an application for return of original documents. For getting the same to be exhibited by Oath Commissioner.
Let the documents of the complainant as per list of documents alongwith earlier affidavit be returned to the complainant after due formality. For filing the same today itself with fresh affidavit in evidence. Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Rajiv Kumar Datt Vs. Jaswinder Singh CC No.4257/10 30.10.2012 File taken up as per the order of Ld. Revisional Court.
Present: Sh. Sarvesh Tyagi, Ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Revisional Court has allowed one opportunity to the accused to cross-examine both the witnesses subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/-. Accused has paid Rs.2,000/- to the proxy counsel for the complainant.
Parties submit that the date in the present court has fixed as 03.12.2012.
List on 03.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Brij Bhushan Attri Vs. Ms. Reeta Thakur CC No.6155/11 30.10.2012 File taken up on an application for preponement of date.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
A notice be issued for 20.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Vinod Kumar Vs. M/s Pipe Traders & Ors.
CC No.3956/10, 3957/10 & 3969/10
30.10.2012
Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
These are three connected matters.
At his request, last opportunity is given as ld. main counsel is not available.
List on 14.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Vijay Bajaj Vs. Ritu Yadav CC No.3936/10 30.10.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with proxy counsel.
They are seeking some more time for settlement.
Adjourned to 29.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Vijay Kumar Vs. Hari Chand
CC No.2569/10
30.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
NBW unexecuted whereas BW was duly executed and in the bail bond same address was mentioned by the accused and his surety.
In the circumstances, let a Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
A Notice to Surety be also issued for 20.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. K.S. Meena CC No.4850/10 30.10.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Matter is listed for cross-examination of the complainant. However, ld. counsel for the complainant is seeking one opportunity on the ground that complainant is not present.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 03.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Sekhawati Capital Finlease (P) Ltd. Vs. Vijender Singh CC No.68/10 30.10.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
There is no compliance of the last order whereas ld. counsel for the accused submits that he has filed the necessary process fee. Order be complied with for 14.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Padmini Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Bajaj CC No.925/10 30.10.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Examination in chief of the accused recorded.
At request of ld. counsel for the complainant, cross-examination deferred.
List on 12.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Balinder Yadav Vs. Tara Aneja CC No.2736/10 30.10.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
There is no report in respect of issuance of notice to the complainant as required vide order dated 08.10.2012.
List on 24.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. Jitender Kumar CC No.6487/12 30.10.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Be complied with for 15.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Sanjeev Kumar Gulati Vs. Mukesh Bhatia CC No.5983/11 30.10.2012 Statement of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Gulati, Complainant (recalled for further cross- examination).
XXXXX by Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. Q. The accused wants to rely upon your cross-examination conducted on 09.10.2012 in CC No. 5984/11 i.e. the connected matter. Do you have any objection ? Ans. I do not have any objection as my answers to those questions will be same even in the present case.
It is correct that there is a cutting at Point A on Exh.CW1/F. Q. I put it to you that at Point A on Exh.CW1/F earlier it was mentioned as "tho" and after cutting the same "lacs only" has been mentioned at Point B to B1. What do you have to say? Objected to by ld. counsel for the complainant on the ground that question regarding content cannot be asked. (Heard. The objection is overruled).
Ans. Whatever is written on the cheque is written by the accused and not by me.
It is wrong to suggest that accused has never written the writings at Point A and B to B1 on Exh.CW1/F. It is correct that at Point C the signature of the accused is by different ink vis a vis rest of the entries made on cheque Exh.CW1/F. It is wrong to suggest that when the cheque was given it was blank bearing signature of the accused at Point C. It further wrong to suggest that I have manipulated the cheque Exh.CW1/F by writing my name and the amount. It is wrong to suggest that accused has no liability against me. It is wrong to suggest that cheque was never issued by the accused towards the liability as claimed by me in the complaint. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Parragon Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Binny Traders & Anr.
CC No.6902/1230.10.2012 After lunch time.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
AR filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. Affidavit is Mark-R. Having heard the ld. counsel and having gone through the record, I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 NI Act against the accused.
Accused be summoned through all modes for 02.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
30.10.2012
Gurmat Pal Singh Vs. Sameer Malhotra
CC No.6983/12
30.10.2012
After lunch time.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Complainant filed his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents exhibited by the Oath Commissioner. Affidavit is Mark-R. Having heard the ld. counsel and having gone through the record, I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 NI Act against the accused.
Accused be summoned through all modes for 05.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Sanjeev Kumar Gulati Vs. Mukesh Bhatia CC No.5983/11 & 5984/11 30.10.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Cross-examination of complainant has already been concluded in CC No.5984/11. Both the sides submit that they will rely on the said cross-examination even in CC No.5983/11 and cross-examination may be conducted in CC No.5983/11. As such cross-examination of the complainant is also conducted and concluded in CC No.5983/11. Since both the cases are regularly listed on the same day and earlier the matter was at the stage of defence evidence wherein accused has been cross-examined in part in one case, let the matter to continue to be listed simultaneously as connected matter.
Let the matters be listed on 19.11.2012 for cross-examination of accused in one case which was deferred earlier.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Mahavir Electricals & Power Systems Controls Vs. M/s Snam Electricals Pvt. Ltd. &Ors.
CC No.4102/10, 4103/10 & 4104/10
30.10.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Both the accused with counsel.
These are three connected matters.
Ld. counsel for the complainant has filed his new Vakalatnama.
Accused submits that he has deposited the cost with the DLSA and also paid the cost to the complainant. Copy of receipt of DLSA taken on record.
Both the sides are seeking adjournment.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 13.12.2012.
At request of both the sides, date is changed to 12.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 M/s Ganesha Expo Vs. Shiv Shakti Export CC No.6974/12 30.10.2012 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: Proxy Counsel for the Complainant.
At request, list on 19.11.2012 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Sharma Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyapal Singh Tyagi CC No.6980/12 30.10.2012 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
At request, list on 21.11.2012 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Sharma Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyapal Singh Tyagi CC No.6981/12 30.10.2012 Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
At request, list on 21.11.2012 for consideration.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012 Surinder Mohan Vs. M/s ASV Industry & Anr.
CC No.6557/1230.10.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused has furnished the bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/-. Accepted.
Warrant received back.
Matter is at the stage of compromise.
Put up for further proceedings on 14.12.2012.
At request, date is changed to 10.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 30.10.2012