Delhi District Court
M/Sdharmesh Artprocess&Print Pvt. ... vs . M/Sscholar Publishing House ... on 24 November, 2012
M/sDharmesh ArtProcess&Print Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/sScholar Publishing House Pvt.Ltd.&Ors. CC No.6626/12 24.11.2012
Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
At 12.22 p.m.
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
He submits that the date for total payment is 22.01.2013.
At his request, matter be listed for 28.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
Dinesh Negi Vs. Dilbag Singh
CC No.6510/12
24.11.2012
Present: Parties in person.
They seek passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 At 12.25 p.m. Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Ld. counsel for the accused has filed his Vakalatnama and has also filed an application for cancellation of NBW on the ground that on the last date accused was to attend a matter in Dwarka Court and, therefore, could not appear in this court. No copy of order of Dwarka Court showing presence of accused has been filed. However, ld. counsel submits that he will file the same on the next date. Accused is admitted on bail subject to furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Ld. counsel for the accused is seeking a passover to furnish the bonds. Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 After lunch Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Bonds furnished. Accepted.
There is possibility of compromise between the parties.
List on 10.01.2013 for compromise and in absence thereof for regular further proceedings.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
Dinesh Rana Vs. Mahesh Chauhan
CC No.2566A/1
24.11.2012
Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
ASI Naresh Kumar in person. He has filed his report about the property of the Surety but is seeking some more time to get the same verified from the Registrar office. At this stage, however, ld. counsel for the accused submits that they will deposit the penalty of Surety bond amount on behalf of the Surety and seeks sometime.
Complainant submits that the cheque of Rs.4 lac received from the accused which has not been presented at the request of accused and that accused has made Rs.1,40,000/- to him out of the said cheque of Rs.4 lacs and has undertaken to pay the remaining amount of the said cheque within four days.
List on 03.12.2012 at request of both the sides.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s S.V. Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ram Avtar Yadav CC No.6568/12 24.11.2012 Present: None.
Earlier process still not received back. Be awaited.
There is further no compliance of last order. Let the same be complied with for 12.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Imran Mirza Vs. Ms. Parveen Chaudhary CC No.5956/11 24.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Summons no received back. Be awaited.
Fresh summons be issued for 11.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
Jasbir Singh Vs. Rajinder Kumar
CC No.641/10
24.11.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. received back.
Process Server be called.
W/A issued against Surety Mukesh Kumar received back executed.
Ct. Amit, Naib Court, Tilak Nagar, appeared and deposited Rs.3,000/- as attached from the Surety. Receipt issued.
List on 07.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s GEMSCAB Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s ICSA (India) Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.6549/A 24.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
There is no compliance of the earlier order. Even earlier processes have not been received back. Be awaited.
Summons be issued afresh through all available modes including through the Ld. CJM for 25.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s Upvan Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Veer Singh CC No.5143/10 24.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
It appears that office has indicated a word issued on the order sheet but there is no clarity as to what has been issued what has not been issued.
Let all the directions of last order be complied with if the same has not been complied with earlier.
List on 07.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
Neeru Chauhan Vs. Pawan Kumar Rajput
CC No.3550/10
24.11.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
It appears that W/A issued against the Surety for last date has been unexecuted. It, however, appears that the Surety had indicated in his affidavit having household articles of Rs.5 lacs and also ownership of some immovable properties and further an income of Rs.15,000/- per month.
Since penalty of bond amount has not been recovered even through attachment, the Surety had made himself liable to face civil imprisonment under Proviso appended to Section-446(2) Cr.P.C. Let NBW be issued against the Surety so that he can face civil imprisonment of appropriate duration which can be decided after hearing him.
It further appears that statement of Process Server has already been recorded in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused. It is, therefore, declared that Proclamation was published on 27.08.2012 in the manner required U/s 82(2)(i) Cr.P.C.
Accused by his non appearance has made himself liable for an offence U/s 174A IPC first part. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned SHO so that he can take appropriate steps.
A Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. be also issued against the accused.
To be listed on 11.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Parasram Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Tyagi CC No.2833/10 24.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
It appears that in the statement of HC Dharampal recorded before the Ld. Link MM. The date of appearance is wrongly showing as 03.09.2012 whereas the same was 10.10.2012.
Let HC Dharampal be again called for 11.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Vinod Suji Vs. Munni Lal Pandit CC No.6509/12 & 6520/12 24.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
These are two connected matters.
Regular summons not received back. However, summons sent by post has been received back in CC No.6509/12 with a report bar bar jaane par praptkarta ka pata nahi chala. Such summons may be declared to be served U/s 144(2) NI Act. In the circumstances, let BW in the sum of Rs.20,000/- be issued against the accused for 02.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s Super Hoze Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Sri Hydraulics & Anr.
CC No.6136/1124.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Summons sent by post received back with refusal.
Such summons may be declared to be served U/s 144(2) NI Act. In the circumstances, let BW in the sum of Rs.20,000/- be issued against the accused for 02.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s Upvan Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Veer Singh CC No.489/10 24.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
A/W against Surety unexecuted.
Unfortunately police officials have not tried to attach the vehicle for which a copy of RC was provided. Let earlier directions be complied with. There is further no report about fresh Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. Let the same be also issued for 07.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Vijay Kr. Gupta Vs. Vijay Kr. Gupta.
CC No.192/124.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
W/A issued against the accused received back with a report some movable properties have been attached. Let a Status report be called from the concerned SHO as to how they will deal with the attached articles for recovery of the required amount of Rs.50,000/-.
List on 11.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Yoginder Tyagi Vs. Radha Krishna Yadav CC No.5317/11 24.11.2012 Present: None.
It appears that statement of Process Server has already been recorded in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused. It is, therefore, declared that Proclamation was published on 30.09.2012 in the manner required U/s 82(2)(i) Cr.P.C.
Accused by his non appearance has made himself liable for an offence U/s 174A IPC first part. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned SHO so that he can take appropriate steps.
A Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. be also issued against the accused.
To be listed on 10.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Havell's India Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Electricals & Anr.
CC No.817/1024.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Matter is at the stage of cross-examination of AR of the complainant. However, accused is seeking a passover for want of his counsel. Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 At 03.25 p.m. Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
AR of the complainant cross-examined. Discharged.
CE stands closed. Separate statement recorded in this respect.
In terms of Guidelines laid down in Step-III in Rajesh Agarwal v State & Another 171(2010) DLT 51, list the matter for DE on 17.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
R.P. Garg Vs. Durga Parshad Sharma
CC No.5456/11
24.11.2012
Present: None for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused supported with medical papers. Allowed.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
Be awaited for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
At 01.10 p.m.
Present: Both the counsels.
Ld. counsel for the accused is seeking an adjournment on the ground that he has recently overcome the Dengue Fever.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that ld. counsel has repeatedly been taking adjournments.
By way of last opportunity, adjourned to 29.11.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Arun Talwar Vs. M/s PSG Developers & Engineers Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.1984/1024.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Today file has been placed. Let order dated 07.07.2012 be complied with.
List on 12.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Balendra Prasad Vs. Bimal Aggarwal CC No.6538/A 24.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Still there is no compliance of earlier order. Ahlmad to report. If summons issued by the office, a report be also called from Nazarat Branch and postal authorities.
Earlier orders to comply with through all modes.
List on 05.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
Balinder Yadav Vs. Ms. Tara Aneja
CC No.2736/10
24.11.2012
Present: None.
Notice issued to the complainant unexecuted.
Let Notice be issued to counsels for both the sides.
List on 05.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
Deepak Kumar Vs. Nand Kishor
CC No.5525/11
24.11.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Convict with counsel.
Matter is listed for arguments on sentence.
Ld. counsel for the accused is seeking six months time so that accused can pay the cheque amount to the complainant. The complainant, however, submits that his counsel be only available after and, therefore, seeks passover.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 At 01.11 p.m. Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused with counsel.
Parties submit that they have settled the matter and have filed the Compromise Deed.
List on 24.02.2013 at their request.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s Art Corner VS. M/s World Expo & Conventions Management Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.5471/10 24.11.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel. There is on compliance of last order. Be complied with for 05.01.2013. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012
M/s Akaansha Credit & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Prema Visvanathan CC No.1587/10 24.11.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
It appears that statement of Process Server Ct. Sumit Kumar was recorded before Ld. Link MM. It appears from the said statement that Process Server has executed the Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. on 22.09.2012 whereas the date of appearance was 25.09.2012. Clearly this cannot be treated as valid publication.
Fresh Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused for 25.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s Cheap Cloth Store Vs. Aditya Overseas CC No.1653/10 24.11.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Matter is listed for final arguments.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 At 12.20 p.m. Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Arguments heard.
Be called after lunch.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
At 03.50 p.m.
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Vide separate judgment, accused is acquitted from the charges i.e. U/s 138 NI Act in the present complaint case. Bonds available on record are 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 24.11.2012 M/s Dhanuka Agritech Ltd Vs. M/s Ramsharan Patel & Brothers & Anr.
CC No.4213/1024.11.2012 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Pre-summoning evidence has already been tendered by the complainant before the Ld. Predecessor on 04.09.2009. Today AR of the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that they have not received any information from the concerned post office even after filing the RTI and that post office does not retain the record longer than 1 ½ year. Affidavit further indicates that legal demand notice was validly dispatched to the address of the accused. Ld. counsel further submits that even if he prays for summoning witness from postal department it would be futile as the legal demand notice was sent in the year 2009.
I have heard the ld. counsels and gone through the record. I am satisfied that a case has been made out against the accused U/s 138 NI Act. Let accused Vinod Patel be summoned through all available modes upon taking necessary steps by the complainant.
List on 14.03.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 The Citizen Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Guru Dutt CC No.4245/10 24.11.2012 Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
It appears that statement of Process Server has already been recorded in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused. It is, therefore, declared that Proclamation was published on 31.07.2012 in the manner required U/s 82(2)(i) Cr.P.C.
Accused by his non appearance has made himself liable for an offence U/s 174A IPC first part. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned SHO so that he can take appropriate steps.
A Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. be also issued against the accused.
To be listed on 21.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Kamal Sarna Vs. Ravinder Singh Sachdeva CC No.1575/10 24.11.2012 Present: None.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi
24.11.2012
At 02.10 p.m.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Counsel for the accused.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused has to attend Nagar Kirtan.
It appears that matter is listed for final arguments.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that he is ready for arguments. Ld. counsel for the accused is, however, seeking adjournment on the ground that he has not taken necessary instructions from the accused.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that complainant has already deposited earlier cost with DLSA. Let the receipt be filed by the complainant. A cost of Rs.500/- is also imposed upon the accused for todays adjournment to be deposited with DLSA.
List on 06.12.2012 at request.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Ms. Anita Kumar Vs. M/s Tridev Electronics Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
CC No.522/10
24.11.2012
Present: None.
It appears that statement of Process Server has already been recorded in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused. It is, therefore, declared that Proclamation was published on 22.10.2011 in the manner required U/s 82(2)(i) Cr.P.C.
Accused by his non appearance has made himself liable for an offence U/s 174A IPC first part. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned SHO so that he can take appropriate steps.
Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. was also issued earlier for 20.03.2012, 30.06.2012 and 10.09.2012 which were unexecuted.
Affidavit of AR of the complainant can be read in evidence at any stage by virtue of Section-145(1) NI Act. Therefore, there is no necessity to proceed U/s 299 Cr.P.C. File may be taken up whenever the accused is apprehended. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Virender Singh (accused).
CC No.532/10, 529/10, 528/10, 530/10, 531/10 & 285/10 24.11.2012 Present: Ishwar Dayal, Jaswant Singh, Sunil Kumar and Suresh Kumar are present with counsel.
Complainant Renu Sharma absent.
Accused produced from JC but on bail in these cases. LAC Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain as sent by the DLSA on call.
These are six matters filed against the accused by different complainants. Ld. LAC submits that he does not have necessary brief as Sh. Jitender Kumar was representing the accused.
Accused submits that earlier Sh. N.K. Saraswat was representing from Legal Aid and later on Sh. Jitender Kumar from Legal Aid has been representing him but today even he is not present.
It appears that accused had filed one handwritten application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. The same is available in CC No.529/10. Ld. LAC has repeatedly sought time by making a submission that he would file similar applications in all the cases with copies to the complainant. However, till date no steps have been taken by the Ld. LAC despite availability of sufficient opportunities.
Ld. counsel for the complainant submits that in view of the conduct of the accused, no further opportunity should be given to him. It, however, appears that accused in the present proceeding has been victim of non serious approach of Legal Aid. For such default primarily of state in not providing adequate representation to the accused, accused should not be made to suffer.
Appropriate authorities in the Legal Aid should ensure that any legal aid counsel after taking a brief should regularly represent the accused on the date fixed by taking all necessary steps as may be required.
Let the matter be adjourned by way of last opportunity for the accused.
Accused in person has filed one application for file inspection. The application has been filed titled as Ishwar Dayal and Ors. Vs. Virender. However, in the application he has indicated that he is facing trial in six cases. He has orally prayed for inspection of all the cases. The application is allowed.
He has also filed an application for permission for his production in Court No.145, Tis Hazari on the ground that he is in urgent need to file an application in the said regarding personal matter. He orally submits that he wants to file an application for custody parole in the said court and that if he files the same through the Jail Authorities it would take 10 days whereas his close relative is admitted in ICU. In the circumstances, his application is allowed.
Both these applications filed today have been taken on record in CC No.531/10.
Ld. LAC Sh. Jain submits that he is not representing the accused as the accused does not want to engage him.
List on 03.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Havell's India Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Electricals & Anr.
CC No.817/1024.11.2012 Statement of Mr. S.R. Arora, AR of the complainant (recalled for cross-examination). On S.A. My pre-summoning evidence by way of affidavit is already on record which is marked today for identification as Mark-R bearing my signatures at Point A and B. XXXXX by Mr. Anil Misra, Ld. counsel for the accused.
I was Authorized Representative/Manager in the year 2006 and presently I am Consultant in the complainant company since the year 1976 and has been working in complainant company in Delhi and NOIDA. It is correct that I have not filed any document i.e. incorporation of company, article or memorandum of association in the present case. (Vol. I can file the same as per the direction of the hon'ble court). There are four Promoter Directors in the company. I do not remember as how many Directors were present at the time of execution of document Exh.CW1/1. (Vol. The same can be provided as per the direction of the hon'ble court). The complainant company deals with the manufacturing of electrical equipments and bath fittings. It is correct that I have not filed any document to show the business operation of the company or any document of business activity. It is correct that the complainant company having its branch offices in various places in India including the branch office in Bhubhneshwar, Orissa. It is correct that I have never posted in Bhubhneshwar branch office during my service with the complainant company. The purchase order of the customers/dealers are used to place the orders through telephonically as well as in writing.
Cross-examination deferred at lunch time. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Havell's India Ltd. Vs. Agarwal Electricals & Anr.
CC No.817/1024.11.2012 Statement of Mr. S.R. Arora, AR of the complainant (recalled for cross-examination after lunch).
On S.A. XXXXX by Mr. Anil Misra, Ld. counsel for the accused.
I do not know whether the accused has placed the purchase order through telephonically or in writing. The cheque in question was issued by the accused against outstanding of various bills. I cannot say the number of outstanding bills. (Vol. I can tell after confirmation from the account department). It is correct that I have not filed any bills in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that accused never placed any purchase order with the complainant nor the complainant had supplied the materials. I cannot say whether the entire transaction took place at Bhubhneshwar, Orissa or not. I can tell the period of transaction and total amount of transaction took place between the complainant and the accused. The period and amount of transaction was in between 2005 to 2007. I cannot tell the exact date and month of the relevant period but I can check and provide through the account department. The materials supplied to the accused persons from Bhubhneshwar and may be from Delhi and other places also. It is correct that I was not present nor seen the materials supplied to the accused. Bill and Invoices are one and same thing. It is correct that complainant company is maintaining Statement of Account of its all dealers including the accused. It is correct that I have not filed any statement of account in the present case but I can file on demand. It is wrong to suggest that I have not filed the Statement of Account on record intentionally, if I filed so then the falsehood of the case came on record. It is correct that I have not filed any bills showing that the materials from Delhi or Bhubhneshwar or any place.
It is correct to suggest that the signature of the accused and the contents of the body of the cheque Exh.CW1/2 appear to be written in two different inks and pens. The cheque Exh.CW1/2 was issued against the liability on 31.08.2006. The cheque Exh.CW1/2 was not filled up in my presence. It is correct that I have not received the cheque Exh.CW1/2 on 31.08.2006. I received and seen the cheque after dishonour of the same. I cannot say the exact date but it was dishonoured in September 2006. It is correct to suggest that I cannot say who has filled the contents of the body of the cheque Exh.CW1/2 because I was not present at that time. It is wrong to suggest that the cheque Exh.CW1/2 is forged, manipulated and tempered by the complainant company. I cannot say whether the Cheque Exh.CW1/2 was stopped by the accused in the month of April 2006 as I do not know when the accused had stopped the payment of the cheque in question. It is wrong to suggest that the accused had informed the complainant company through a letter dated 29.03.2006. I cannot say about the letter dated 29.03.2006 as I have no personal knowledge. I cannot say the seal reflected in the proof of delivery of the courier belongs to the complainant company or not, however, it is a matter of record. I have no knowledge whether any talks were progressed for the settlement of the account between the complainant with the accused or not in the year 2007. The cheque Exh.CW1/2 was presented for encashment at the branch bank of complainant situated at Bhubhneshwar. It is correct that cheque and bank memo were sent to its registered office at Delhi from Bhubhneshwar. It is correct that accused had replied to the legal notice issued by the complainant company. I cannot say whether accused had issued two undated cheques to the complainant company for the purpose of security in the year 2005 or not. Q. I put it to you that accused had issued two undated cheques bearing No.954701 and 954702 to the complainant company for the purpose of security in the year 2005. What do you have to say ?
Ans. I have no knowledge about it.
It is wrong to suggest that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no debt or liability against the accused as the cheque Exh.CW1/2 was manufactured, manipulated and fabricated. I have filed the present complaint of Exh.CW1/2 only. I cannot say the cheque bearing No.954702 is in whose custody or possession. It is wrong to suggest that I am only empowered to sign the present complaint and appear in court only or that I have no personal knowledge of the present case. It is wrong to suggest that complainant company used to file complaint at Delhi jurisdiction of against its various dealers of different parts of India. It is wrong to suggest that I have dishonestly and fraudulently filed the present case at Delhi in order to harass the accused who is permanent resident of Orissa. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 Statement of Mr. S.R. Arora, AR of the complainant. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant do hereby close my evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s Durga Motor & General Finance Co. Vs. Narinder Singh &Anr.
CC No.961/10
24.11.2012
Present: None.
It appears that statement of Process Server has already been recorded in respect of execution of Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused. It is, therefore, declared that Proclamation was published on 27.05.2012 in the manner required U/s 82(2)(i) Cr.P.C.
Accused by his non appearance has made himself liable for an offence U/s 174A IPC first part. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned SHO so that he can take appropriate steps.
A Process U/s 83 Cr.P.C. be also issued against the accused.
To be listed on 10.01.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012 M/s Unifab Industries Vs. M/s Presidency Kid Leather Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.7050/12 & 7051/12 24.11.2012 Fresh case received on assignment. It be checked and registered.
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Affidavit filed alongwith documents exhibited by Oath Commissioner.
Affidavit is marked as Mark-R for identification.
I am satisfied that a case has been made out U/s 138 NI Act.
Let all the five accused be summoned through all modes on taking all steps by the complainant.
List on 28.02.2013.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi 24.11.2012