Delhi District Court
Gurpreet Singh vs . Satish Kumar on 24 April, 2012
Gurpreet Singh Vs. Satish Kumar
C.C.No.4596/10
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
I have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused, however, seeks time to advance arguments. He will be
advancing arguments after lunch.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that accused be heard after lunch.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
At 02.45 p.m.
Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that today Ld. Revisional Court has stayed the matter
and the Revision Petition is listed for 17.05.2012. Ld. Counsel is directed to file a copy of the order.
List on 21.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
M/s Mahavir Electricals & Power Systems Controls Vs. M/s Snam Electricals Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.4102/10, 4103/10 & 4104/10
24.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Both the accused persons.
It appears that Ld. Revisional Court has given one opportunity to the accused persons to
cross-examine the complainant on limited point.
Both the parties seek passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
At Lunch time.
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Complainant cross-examined in part.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that he has personal difficulty after lunch. Therefore,
he makes a request for next date.
Only one opportunity is given to the accused to complete the cross-examination.
At request of parties, list on 02.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Puran Bisht Vs. CreativeMind Consultants and Training Academy
File taken up out of turn at the request of ld. counsel for the complainant on mentioning.
C.C.No.6363/11
24.04.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
He submits that due to some problem in his home, he has to go.
The accused is duly served.
Be awaited for the accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
At 02.45 p.m.
Present: None.
A Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be issued against the accused for 06.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
M/s Satyasai Information Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs. Purusharth Singh Kushwaha
C.C.No.4701/10
24.04.2012
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
At 02.45 p.m.
Present: None.
No report received from the Nazarat Branch. However, even the complainant is not
appearing.
Complainant was also not present on the last date.
The complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Surender Mohan Gupta Vs. Shri Pramod
C.C.No.4317/10
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused seeks a passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
At 02.50 p.m.
Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused submits that his ld. counsel is not available.
Matter is adjourned subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with DLSA.
List on 15.05.2012 for statement of accused.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Bhagat Singh Vs. Shri Luxmi Agencies
C.C.No.1432/1
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused in person.
Matter is listed for cross-examination of the complainant.
Accused seeks a passover.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
At 02.50 p.m.
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
It appears that matter is listed for appearance of complainant and for his cross-examination.
The complainant Bhagat Singh is, however, not present.
It appears that complainant is not appearing for the last several dates.
No further opportunity can be given to him.
Now his affidavit cannot be ready in evidence as he has not presented himself for cross-
examination.
Complainant's evidence closed.
Put up for SA on 19.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Ashok Ahuja Vs. Comfort Hospitality Services & Anr.
C.C.No.6498/A
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has filed an exemption application on behalf of the accused
stating that being a Tour Operator, the accused has to go to Kashmir with the tour.
Ld. Counsel for the accused further submits that payment of the cheque has already been
made to the complainant.
One opportunity for the accused to participate in the proceedings.
List on 08.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Jaspal Singh Alagh Vs. Ashish Juneja
C.C.No.6373/11
24.04.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused wants to filed affidavit of the accused in defence.
I consider that the same cannot be accepted as there is no provision in the NI Act or in
Cr.P.C. which enables the accused to file an affidavit in defence evidence.
One more opportunity is given to the accused to establish his defence.
List on 31.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Hem Lata @ Hema Dhingra Vs. Anurag Chourasia
C.C.No.5271/10
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
Matter is listed for further cross-examination of the complainant for the both the sides submit
that they are willing and ready for settlement.
Parties submit that they have arrived at settlement for Rs.35,000/-.
List on 18.05.2012 for settlement, payment and disposal.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Shyam Kumar Gupta Vs. Sanjeev Kumar
C.C.No.6535/A
24.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant firm with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after
considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs.
Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that
prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused Sanjeev Kumar for the next date of hearing.
Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided
in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court
to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 28.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
M/s Multitech Infrastructures (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s R.S. Builtwell Pvt. Ltd. &Ors.
C.C.No.2214/10
24.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of the accused on the ground that he is
suffering from Vomiting.
It appears that on 02.03.2012 a Non Bailable Warrant was issued against the accused which
was stayed on 26.03.2012 with a direction to the accused to appear in person. Despite such specific
direction, accused chose to absent himself by moving completely frivolous application.
The application being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Unfortunately, in the present case accused has not put his appearance even at once.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the NBW to continue.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that accused has not paid the installment.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has handed over a DD of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant and
assured that the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- with the interest to be paid on or before
10.05.2012.
At request of ld. counsel for the complainant, date is changed to 16.05.2012.
Ld. Counsel for the accused further given an assurance that he will ensure the presence of
the accused on the next date.
Ld. Counsel for the accused pressed for stay of NBW.
With such assurance, NBW shall remain stayed till next date.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises Vs. M/s Maharia Re-Surfacing & Constructions(P) Ltd.
C.C.No.1705/10
File taken up on an application for withdrawal of the complaint.
24.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant firm with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Parties submit that they have settled the matter outside the court. However, they do not want
to disclose the terms of settlement. AR of the complainant submits that he wants to simply withdraw
the case.
Statement of AR of the complainant firm recorded.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Syed Babalal H. AIR 2010 SC 1907 as the complainant is simply
withdrawing the case.
Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that in every complaint case the complainant has
a right to withdraw the same without any hindrance and, therefore, no cost can be imposed when the
case is withdrawn.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has not argued anything on this point.
I have considered the submissions of the ld. counsel for the accused.
The matter has been settled after all due delay. Even the accused has availed revisional
opportunity. Even accused has approached Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the order of the
Ld. Revisional Court and the matter was listed for pronouncement of judgment, the present
application is filed.
I consider that if the contention of the ld. counsel for the accused is accepted, the same would
have grave repercussions and will definitely frustrate the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Syyed Baba Lal .
In every case, parties may settle the matter outside the court and the complainant may
make a Statement claiming withdrawal of the complaint and, thereafter, accused may contend that no
cost can be imposed as complainant has simply withdrawn the case.
It appears that the intention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above said judgment
was to discourage the accused persons who continue with the litigation till the end and then sought
refuge in the umbrella of settlement. By laying down the scale of cost, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India discouraged the continuation of private litigations till the finalization of trial where the only
intention of the accused is to gain time.
The present case is no exception. The accused persons chose to continue with the trial till the
finalization and now are also inclined escape the cost on the ground that AR of the complainant firm
made a simple statement of withdrawal.
I consider that contention of the ld. counsel for the accused cannot be accepted in the above
circumstances.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that presumption of innocence is a basic right of
accused persons.
I consider that this submission is more relevance whatsoever to the imposition of cost as
directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above said judgment.
Once the guidelines have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the same
has to be followed.
I consider that accused cannot escape the cost on the pretext that the judgment is not
applicable to the withdrawal of the case. If we allow such contention to prevail, in no case guidelines
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India can be complied with for every complainant after settling the
case outside the court can make a simple statement of withdrawal. I consider that so far as imposition
of cost for delay caused by the accused is concerned, the difference between the disposal of the case
on statement of withdrawal or compounding is immaterial.
Even otherwise the application of the complainant has used the term settled. To quote from
the application "That the complainant has settled the above said matter amicably out of the
court.....". Even the application is supported by affidavit of the AR of the complainant.
Even further the AR of the complainant has used the term settled in his statement recorded in
this court today.
Statement reads "...that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused
company out of court..."
Clearly the matter has been settled between the parties and only to avoid the cost prescribed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Ld. Counsel for the accused is relying upon the concept of
withdrawal of the case.
To give due weightage to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in the
circumstances of the case, the contention of the ld. counsel is rejected.
The amount involved in the present case is totalling Rs.20 lacs. A 10% cost i.e. Rs.2 lacs
imposed on the accused persons to be deposited with DLSA (Central), Delhi. For this 10 days time is
given to the accused persons.
List on 05.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
M/s Doaba House Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhatia
C.C.No.2987/10
24.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
HC Banwari Lal is present.
His Statement recorded for the execution process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. The affidavit of complainant
can be read in evidence whenever the accused is apprehended. Therefore, there is no necessity to
proceed U/s 299 Cr.P.C.
Concerned SHO is directed to register an FIR against the accused U/s 174A IPC.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned SHO.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur Vs. Rajat Malhotra & Ors.
File received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after
considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs.
Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that
prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the next date of hearing.
Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided
in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court
to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 28.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
M/s Fairfield Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishnamurthy
C.C.No.5104/10
24.04.2012
Present: None.
Process Server Constable Mukesh Kumar is present.
He submits that he has executed the process on 28.06.2008.
A perusal of the order sheet goes to show that the said execution was not accepted by the Ld.
Predecessor vide order dated 01.09.2008 and fresh Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. was directed to be
executed which was executed by Constable H. Raju on 19.12.2008.
Let this Process Server H. Raju be called for the next date.
It further appears that Process Server Constable Mukesh Kumar was called to explain why
his report was tempered.
One opportunity is given to the Constable Mukesh Kumar to explain his reasons in terms of
order dated 01.09.2008.
Matter is very old.
List on 04.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
C.C.No.30/10
24.04.2012
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused.
It appears that frivolous exemption applications are being filed on behalf of the accused on
the ground of settlement whereas NBW is in operation. The exemption application is, therefore,
dismissed.
It appears that vide order dated 03.04.2012, a Show Cause Notice was directed to be issued
to the concerned Commissioner of Police, Kochi, Kerala. However, there is no report in respect of
compliance of the said order.
The concerned Ahlmad shall make his sufficient explanation within two days why the order
dated 03.04.2012 was not complied with.
Let Show Cause Notice be issued against the Commissioner of Police, Kochi, Kerala by
speed post as indicated vide order dated 03.04.2012.
It appears that on 21.04.2012, exemption application was filed before the Ld. Link MM who
directed the same to be listed for today for consideration. The said exemption application is also on
similar lines of the ground of settlement.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the said exemption application is also
dismissed.
Today, even no one is present on behalf of the Surety.
Warrant of Attachment against Surety Beni Thomas and Surety HC Popli for recovery of the
bond amount be also issued.
Considering the factual circumstances and the conduct on the part of the accused person, it
is directed that the concerned DCP shall depute a police official of the rank of Inspector of Police to
execute the warrants in consultation with the police authorities of the local jurisdiction. NBW shall also
be issued against all the three accused persons.
It appears that on earlier occasion, the ACP, North-West District had sent the Warrants to the
Commissioner of Police, Kochi, Kerala.
He shall also obtain the report therefrom within 10 days and submit the same to this court.
List on 18.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
C.C.No.3411/10
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
He filed an exemption application on the ground that accused is busy in the marriage of his
son which is scheduled today.
It appears that an application was filed by the accused on 18.02.2012 U/s 145(2) NI Act for
summoning of defence witness whereby he wanted to summon the Manager from the Vysya
Cooperative Bank.
It further appears that ld. counsel for the complainant wanted to file reply to the said
application. However, no reply was filed by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant as such I have gone
through the application and also through the record.
I consider that Section-145(2) NI Act has no relevance with the defence witness. However, it
appears that on earlier occasion accused had moved an application U/s 254 Cr.P.C. to summon the
same bank witness i.e. from Vysya Cooperative Bank. Even on 20.08.2011, the said bank witness
was present but record was not certified.
I consider that one opportunity may be given to the accused to summon the said witness. As
such application is disposed of.
Let the witness from the Vysya Cooperative Bank be called with certified copies of relevant
record.
It shall be the duty of the accused to furnish the complete details and also to file necessary
process fee. The accused shall also ensure the service of summons on the witness.
It is further made clear that no other opportunity would be given to the accused to examine
any other witness in defence.
List on 25.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Rohit Enterprises
C.C.No.4711/10
24.04.2012
Present: Both the parties.
Vide separate judgment, accused is acquitted from the charges in the present complaint
case.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond available on record is extended for the purpose of Section-437A
Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
C.C.No.6158/11 & 6157/11
24.04.2012
Present: None.
These are two matters.
NBW unexecuted with a report already left the address and the second address is not
traceable.
It appears that on earlier occasion, ld. counsel for the accused wanted to settle the matter.
A notice be issued to both the ld. counsels for 11.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Vijay Vs. Ashwani Kumar Mahajan
C.C.No.2463/10
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Matter is listed for final arguments, however, ld. counsel for the accused is seeking an
adjournment on the ground that he has filed a revision petition.
He, however, fairly conceded that there is no stay of the proceeding.
It appears that matter was earlier listed for final arguments on 10.04.2012 and the same was
adjourned by the Ld. Link MM for today.
I consider that a summary trial should not be delayed. As such I have heard the ld. counsel
for the complainant.
Put up for pronouncement of judgment on 03.05.2012.
Ld. Counsel for the accused may, if so wish, file written arguments sufficiently before the next
date.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
C.C.No.2041/10
24.04.2012
Present: None.
It appears that complainant had filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint which was
eventually directed to be listed on 04.04.2012 but the same has not been listed by office on that day.
Today is the regular date of hearing, however, no one is present on behalf of the complainant.
A Notice be issued to the complainant for 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
C.C.No.5092/10
24.04.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused in person.
Matter is at the stage of defence evidence.
Complainant is not appearing.
Direction in respect of issuance of Notice to the complainant has not been complied with by
the office.
Let the office to issue notice to the complainant for 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
C.C.No.5698/11
24.04.2012
Present: None.
Again there is no compliance of the order.
Explanation of the Ahlmad be called in writing.
In the meantime, last order be complied with for 02.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012
Sanjay Bajaj Vs. Magnum
Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.
24.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
The complaint has been filed with an application for condonation of delay.
Notice be issued to the respondent for 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 Ramesh Chander Soni Vs. R.P. Tyagi Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No. 24.04.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
These are two matters of the complainant.
He seeks an adjournment for want of his counsel.
List on 14.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 Ramesh Chander Soni Vs. Jitender Pal Singh Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No. 24.04.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
These are two matters of the complainant.
He seeks an adjournment for want of his counsel.
List on 14.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.5740/1 24.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused.
He has filed an exemption application on behalf of the accused on the ground that father of the accused is admitted in hospital.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
Simply a bald averment has been made in the application without supporting any document. Application is dismissed.
A Non Bailable Warrant be issued against the accused.
It appears that accused has delayed the matter and also wants to delay the matter by moving such frivolous application that too through proxy counsel.
List on 01.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.4484/10 24.04.2012 Present: Ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the complainant on the ground that he has gone to Haridwar.
An exemption application has also been filed on behalf of the accused Amandeep Gill on the ground that he has been advised bed rest.
Medical certificate is also attached with the exemption application of the accused.
Father of the accused is also present who submitted that he never refused to given Mobile Number and address of the accused to any police official.
His submission is contrary to the report made by SI Pramod Kumar.
As such SI Pramod Kumar be called for the next date.
Accused is also directed to appear in person on the next date without fail.
Ld. Proxy counsel submits that within a week they will provide necessary copies to the accused.
List for further proceedings on 04.06.2012.
At request, date is changed to 06.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.2740/10, 2739/10, 4448/10, 4433/10, 4216/10 & 4155/10 24.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are six connected matters.
Matters are at the stage of cross-examination of the complainant side.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that CW2 is not present since some relative of the CW2 has expired.
Both the ld. counsels further submit that the cross-examination of CW1 as well as CW2 have to follow in all the cases except CC No.4216/10 as observed in the last order sheet.
However, both the ld. counsels submit that even in the said file only CW2 is to be examined.
Adjourned for appearance of CW2 and further cross-examination on 25.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.4327/10 24.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Accused has filed an application showing his sufficient cause for non appearance.
The ground taken is that previous counsel did not inform the accused about the next date.
I consider that this cause cannot justify the non appearance. Accused was also duty bound to know the date and to appear in the court.
It appears that on 16.08.2007, accused was present in person and the matter was adjourned to 08.05.2008 and, therefore, accused had not put his appearance.
In such circumstances, allegation on any previous counsel is not only futile but appears to be made with malafide. If on 16.08.2007 accused was present in person, how he can make an allegation that ld. counsel did not inform the accused. The cause shown by the accused is not accepted. Accused to pay the penalty.
Only five days time is given to the accused to pay the penalty failing which Warrant of Attachment be issued to recover the penalty amount.
AR of the complainant filed has affidavit. Copy supplied to the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is not ready for cross-examination of the AR.
Only one opportunity is given to the accused.
List on 30.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.3435/10 24.04.2012 Present: None.
Bailable Warrant issued against HC Shyam Lal received back with a report that he is on CL.
Let a Bailable Warrant be again issued against the HC Shyam Lal.
List on 10.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.6569/12 24.04.2012 Present: Ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Advocate Sh. Manoj Kumar for the accused on Memo of Appearance.
Accused is not present and there is no explanation of the non appearance of the accused.
Even he has not sent his counsel with proper authorization. As such to ensure the presence of the accused, a Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.20,000/- be issued for 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.4825/1 & 4826/1B 24.04.2012 Present: Ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant.
Proxy counsel for LAC Sh. Jitender Kumar.
These are two connected matters.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the complainant on the ground as of some personal difficulty.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused submits that accused Raman Grover is in JC in Punjab.
Let Production Warrant be issued.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused to provide details.
List on 07.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.2339/10 24.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Bailable Warrant issued against the accused received back unexecuted.
A Non Bailable Warrant be issued against the accused.
It appears that despite service of notice no report has been received from the concerned SHO.
A Show Cause Notice be also issued to the concerned SHO.
File be listed on 01.09.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 C.C.No.5929/11 24.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
He furnished the same. Accepted.
Complainant is not appearing.
Let a Notice be issued to him for 25.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 Shyam Kumar Gupta Vs. Sanjeev Kumar C.C.No.6535/A 24.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Shyam Kumar Gupta, AR of the complainant firm. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/1A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I also rely upon Additional Affidavit Exh.CW1/1G which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I also rely upon the documents Exh.CW1/A to Exh.CW1/H. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises Vs. M/s Maharia Re-Surfacing & Constructions(P) Ltd.
C.C.No.1705/1024.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Raj Pal Goel, AR of the complainant firm, S/o Late Sh. P.D. Goel. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant firm do hereby state that the matter has been amicably settled with the accused company out of court. I do not want to pursue the case anymore.
Therefore, I may be allowed to withdraw the case.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur Vs. Rajat Malhotra & Ors.
C.C.No. 24.04.2012 Statement of Ms. Sarabjeet Kaur, complainant. On S.A. I, the above named complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point B and Point C. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012 M/s JK Tyre & Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s Kar Brothers Fresh case received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
24.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and jurisdiction (GE Capital Transportation Services Ltd. Vs. Rahisuddin Khan dated 09.09.2011 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.3 for the next date of hearing.
Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4) Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial procedure on 27.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/24.04.2012