Delhi District Court
Gurpreet Singh vs . Satish Kumar on 19 July, 2012
Gurpreet Singh Vs. Satish Kumar CC No.4596/10 19.07.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Matter settled in Mediation Cell.
At request, list on 13.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
19.07.2012
M/s Kesari Oil Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Jyoti Transformers & Electrical Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.4493/10 19.07.2012 Statement of CW2 Mr. Sunil Kumar Nayak, Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Modipara, Sambalpur-768002, Orrisa.
On S.A. I have not brought the summoned record as the same has been destroyed. As per the Guidelines of our bank, we destroyed the same record. But I have brought the list of documents which have been destroyed by our bank. The same is Mark-A (running into 10 pages). If we receive a cheque which is beyond the limitation period for clearing or for collection, we entertain the same and then we return the same with the remark "stale cheque". The Memo Exh.CW1/5 was issued by our bank. Whenever we return stale cheque, we prepare a memo and mention the reason of return that the same stale cheque. In Memo Exh.CW1/5, there is no report of stale cheques. I cannot say whether the cheques in question were stale cheques or not. The request for stopping the payment of cheques in question must be in writing. I have not brought the same. On receiving the cheques in question, we entered the entries in Inward Tappal Register and Inward Sight for collection. These records were also destroyed and the same are mentioned in Mark-A. XXXXX by Mr. B.B. Pradhan, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
I have received the summons in the month May 2012. It is correct that I have not received any summons prior to this summons from any court in respect of this cheque. It is correct that my bank had no instructions to keep these documents carefully for future purposes. As per the Circular of our Headquarters, we destroyed the said summoned documents. If we receive any outstation cheque for clearance then we clear the same within 1-2 days from receiving the cheque. It is correct that on 06.06.2003 we had despatched the cheques in question alongwith the Memo with some reason. It is wrong to suggest that the cheques were reached in our bank beyond six months from the date of cheque. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 M/s Paras Metals Vs. M/s Maa Vaishno Industries & Anr.
CC No.6545/1219.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
There is no compliance of the last order. Whereas ld. counsel submits that he has already filed the process fee.
Let last order be complied with for 06.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 Ram Niwas Verma Vs. Chander Shekhar Pathak CC No.288/10 19.07.2012 Present: None.
HC Ranbir Singh from PS : Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi is present.
Warrant of Attachment received.
The HC submits that he has attached Rs.5,000/- in cash from the accused and deposited the same in the Malkhana. Today he has brought Rs.5,000/- from Malkhana. He deposited the same with the State. Receipt issued.
HC is directed to give the original receipt to the accused against due acknowledgment and to file the acknowledgment in the court.
The Acknowledgment whenever received be annexed with the file.
It appears that the present matter was already settled on 17.03.2011 with a statement of complainant. Only for recovery of forfeited bond amount, the matter was continuing and the same comes to the end today with the execution of Attachment Warrant as indicated above.
Nothing survives in the present case.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 Ratnesh Bansal Vs. Jag Dev Singh CC No.1942/10 19.07.2012 Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
They are seeking sometime for settlement.
At their request, list on 04.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 Ms. Sartaj Begum Vs. Anis Ahmed CC No.4892/10 19.07.2012 Present: Brother of the complainant.
Brother of the complainant submits that accused has changed the address.
Complainant has not filed fresh address till date.
Only one opportunity is given to the complainant subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with DLSA.
List on 06.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 Ms. Seema Rani Vs. Sudesh Jain CC No.6546/A 19.07.2012 Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Be complied with for 31.10.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 M/s Valentinos Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. Sujoy Ghosh CC No.4677/10 19.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Summons be only issued if complainant files fresh address or is desirous to accompany the Process Server.
List on 04.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 M/s Valentinos Chit Fund (P) Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Quamruzzman CC No.4674/10 19.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
There is no compliance of the last order.
Summons be only issued if complainant files fresh address or is desirous to accompany the Process Server.
List on 04.12.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 M/s Phool Chand Ved Prakash Vs. M/s Sparck Tech. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.5059/10
19.07.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
Matter is listed for further cross-examination of the accused.
Accused further cross-examined in part.
Cross-examination deferred.
At joint request, list on 30.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 Babu Lal Jain Vs. Sanjay Kumar Suchdeva CC No.4325/10 19.07.2012 Present: Mr. Chander Pal Jain, LR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Accused is seeking 15 minutes passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 At 01.30 p.m. Present: Mr. Chander Pal Jain, LR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Chander Pal Jain further cross-examined.
Cross-examination deferred.
List on 21.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 M/s Phool Chand Ved Prakash Vs. M/s Sparck Tech. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
CC No.5059/1019.07.2012 Statement of DW1 accused No.2 Pradeep Kumar (recalled for further cross-examination). XXXXX by Mr. Rajeev Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for the complainant. On S.A. As on today I do not have the copy of Order No.192 dated 15.03.1994 as mentioned Exh.CW1/A2. Same is my reply in respect of Invoices bearing No.1101 and No.1102 dated 09.04.1994 as mentioned in Exh.CW1/A2. These Invoices relate to the Order No.192. I do not remember whether there was some other invoice in respect to said Order No.192 or not. I had not taken any copies of the said order and the invoices from the complainant or Opsparck for charging commission of the transaction. (Vol. I had demanded my commission from the complainant and the cheque given to him as Guarantor but neither of the same was given to me by the complainant and on 19.09.2002 when I returned back to India and I again demanded the commission and cheques from the complainant then he instituted the present complaint case against me). I had not given any notice for demanding commission nor I had filed any case against the complainant. I had only made verbal demand when I had returned to India on 19.09.2002. I had come to know from the complainant that the M/s Opsparck had made cash payment at Ukraine to the complainant regarding the goods of Order No.192 but I do not remember the month and the year when the complainant had informed me. I do not know who on behalf of M/s Opspark had made payment and where and when and in which currency it was made. I did not try to enquire these facts. I did not instruct my banker to stop payment of the cheque No.419736 when I came to know that payment in lieu thereof has been made in cash. I had verbally demanded back the aforesaid cheque from the complainant but I do not remember the month and year that I had demanded the said cheque. I do not remember as to whether any written letter was sent to the complainant demanding the said cheque. I do not remember the year and month when I had demanded back the two cheques in question Exh.CW1/4 and Exh.CW1/5. However, the same was demanded verbally by me when I shifted to Ukraine and the complainant came at Ukraine and stayed with me and informed me that he had received the payment of the transaction. I do not remember the month and year when the complainant informed me about the cash payment received from M/s Opspark after receipt of the cheques in question Exh.CW1/4 and Exh.CW1/5. I also did not know and enquire as to who had made cash payment on behalf of M/s Opspark and when, where and in which currency was it made. I had not received the summons of this hon'ble court at B-152, Priyadarshni Vihar, New Delhi. Again said I do not remember if the summons received by me at the aforesaid address or at Noida, UP where I had shifted.
Cross-examination deferred.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 Babu Lal Jain Vs. Sanjay Kumar Suchdeva CC No.4325/10 19.07.2012 Statement of CW1 Mr. Chander Pal Jain, AR of the Complainant (recalled for further cross-examination).
XXXXX by Mr. Satvinder Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused. On S.A. I can read English language but cannot understand the meaning. I can write the name and address in English language. I cannot understand the meaning of the document Exh.CW1/Z. Q. You are deposing falsely that you cannot read and understand the English language as you stated in your previous cross-examination whereas now you said that you can read English language and even read the Exh.CW1/Z in front of the court. What you have to say ? Ans. I cannot read or write English language except the names and addresses and not able to understand the meaning of the same completely. Now I have read the document Exh.CW1/Z in front the court today but cannot tell the meaning.
I had signed the document Exh.CW1/Z at the instance of my counsel although I do not know and understand the contents of it today. I had sent a notice to the accused on 23.07.2002. I had sent another legal demand notice to the accused thereafter on 26.09.2002. I have filed the notice dated 23.07.2002 before the court alongwith the complaint. The notice dated 23.07.2002 was sent by my counsel. However, I do not remember the name of my counsel. The said notice was sent for demand of Rs.1 lac and interest of Rs.20,000/-. It is wrong to suggest that I had not sent any such notices to the accused nor I have filed the same on the court record. After confronting with the record, again said that notice dated 23.07.2002 is not on record. It is wrong to suggest that since I have not sent the said notice to the accused, I have not filed the same on record.
Cross-examination deferred at lunch time. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 Sri Ram Srirangam Vs. Umesh Prasad CC No.6262/1 19.07.2012 File taken up on an application for summoning of witness.
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Vide this application, the complainant wants to summon two bank witnesses.
It appears that bank witnesses have already been directed to be summoned vide order dated 05.07.2012. As such the application is disposed of.
Another application has also been filed by the complainant praying that he will pay the diet money when the witnesses will appear. Allowed.
List on date fixed i.e. 28.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 M/s Naman Communiations Vs. Ms. Priti Yadav CC No.2720/10, 2725/10, 2726/10 & 2765/10 19.07.2012 Statement of Parmod Varma, AR of the Complainant (recalled for cross-examination on an application U/s 145(2) NI Act).
XXXXX by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
On S.A. M/s Naman Communications is a Partnership firm. It is correct that in the agreement dated 16.04.2008 the M/s Naman Communications has been shown at Point A to Point B as company registered under the Companies Act having registered office at 38, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi is incorrect. (Vol. The above said fact that M/s Naman Communications is a company is a typographical error). It is correct that in the aforesaid agreement dated 16.04.2008, the Pankaj Films and Advertisement has been shown as company registered under Companies Act is also incorrect. It is correct that Pankaj Films and Advertisement is a Proprietorship firm. I have been working for the Prabhatam Group of Companies since 2006. The Agreement dated 16.04.2008 was drafted by Consultant of our firm. My Partnership firm M/s Naman Communications is not registered. Today I am placing on record copy of Memorandum of Understanding Mark-A executed between M/s Naman Communications and Sahara Samay. Today I do not have original of the aforesaid document. It is correct that our firm namely M/s Naman Communications stopped dealing with Sahara Samay as per our Agreement dated 27.02.2008 after August 2008. It is correct that Pankaj Films and Advertisement has given to our firm three Release Orders dated 06.05.2008 for Rs.29,21,360/-(including Service Tax), 10.06.2008 for Rs.25 lacs (including Service Tax) and 26.06.2008 for Rs.1,92,135/- (including Service Tax) respectively which are not on court record. It is correct that as per agreement it was our duty to telecast the aforesaid Release Orders dated 06.05.2008, 10.06.2008 and 26.06.2008 respectively. It is correct that we have not provided any Telecast Certificate to the Pankaj Films and Advertisement regarding the telecast of above mentioned Release Orders dated 06.05.2008, 10.06.2008 and 26.06.2008 respectively. (Vol. We did not provide the same as Sahara Samay did not provide us Telecast Certificate as it was not their practice to provide Telecast Certificate to us. Sahara Samay only raises bills as per agreement).
Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the accused. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012 M/s Naman Communiations Vs. Ms. Priti Yadav CC No.2720/10, 2725/10, 2726/10 & 2765/10 19.07.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are four connected matters.
Complainant deposited the cost with DLSA. Copy of receipt taken on record.
AR of the complainant cross-examined in part.
Cross-examination deferred at request of ld. counsel for the accused.
Accused has moved an application for permanent exemption on the ground that accused is residing in Bhopal, MP and is having a 15 months old baby to be looked after. He has also filed a copy of Birth Certificate of the child.
Accused has also mentioned that he will not dispute her identity.
In the circumstances, accused shall remain exempted till further orders.
List on 30.08.2012 at request of both the ld. counsels.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 19.07.2012