Delhi District Court
It Appears That This Complaint Is ... vs . on 3 February, 2011
C.C.No.4583/10
03.02.2011
Present: None.
It appears that court notice was duly served as observed in the order sheet
dated 02.02.2011.
However, no one is present today.
Be awaited.
To be called at 3.00 p.m.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
At 3.40 p.m.
Present: None.
No one appeared despite several calls.
Complaint dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.1163/10
03.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
A photocopy of the executed warrant has been placed before me.
Concerned SHO to explain the reasons.
A notice to the concerned SHO be issued.
Accused is a resident of Kolkata.
Matter be awaited.
To be called at 3.00 p.m.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
At 3.40 p.m.
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
Issue NBW against the accused persons through concerned SSP for
23.04.2011. Dasti.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.5173/10
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Notice was issued to the accused. However, not received back. Be
awaited.
It appears that an application for Condonation of delay in filing of
complaint is on record.
Ld. Counsel for the accused was present on 26.07.2010.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant is not available. Be awaited for 12.30
p.m.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
At 12.30 p.m.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
He prayed for Dasti notice.
It be given.
To be listed on 03.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.4888/10
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Notice was issued to the accused. However, not received back. Be
awaited.
It appears that an application for Condonation of delay in filing of
complaint is on record.
Ld. Counsel for the accused was present on 26.07.2010.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant is not available. Be awaited for 12.30
p.m.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
At 12.30 p.m.
Present: Complainant with counsel.
He prayed for Dasti notice.
It be given.
To be listed on 03.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.3569/10
03.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
There is no report in respect of summons.
Summons be issued afresh for 03.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.4421/10
03.02.2011
Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Notice issued to the complainant not received back. Be awaited.
However, since, affidavit of the complainant given at the Pre-summoning
stage is on record, there is no necessity for any Post-summoning evidence.
Accused to disclose defence and lead defence evidence failing which no
further opportunity shall be granted.
List on 02.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.4420/10
03.02.2011
Present: None.
It appears that this complaint is between Ms/ Shanti Lal and sons Vs.
A.P. Avasthi. However, due to certain mistake on the part of the office, this file is
being listed as Dayanand Vs. Virender Kumar Dagar.
Office is directed to correct the mistake.
Let a notice be issued to both the parties.
To be listed on 04.06.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.3393/10
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Notice of Condonation Application issued to the accused not received
back. Be awaited.
Notice be issued afresh for 03.03.2011. Dasti.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.2046/10
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant in persons.
Dasti warrant not taken.
One opportunity.
Accused is stated to be available in Pune, Maharashtra.
Complainant to take all necessary steps.
List on 30.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.5002/10
03.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
He seeks some more time on the ground that Postal Authorities are
delaying the matter.
Matter be adjourned to 03.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.1693/10
03.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
He seeks some more time on the ground that Postal Authorities are
delaying the matter.
Matter be adjourned to 03.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.4549/10
03.02.2011
Present: None.
Bailable warrant issued against the accused person not received back. Be
awaited.
Ahlmad to check and report.
Be listed on 05.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.4596/10
03.02.2011
Present: None.
There is no report in respect of filing of process fees or issuance of
process.
Bailable warrant as directed vide order dated 28.07.2009 be issued against
the accused, if applied for.
To be listed on 06.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.4551/10
03.02.2011
Present: None.
Summons issued to the accused not received back. Be awaited.
In the meanwhile, fresh summons be issued through all modes for
06.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.982/10
03.02.2011
Present: None.
Summons issued to the accused received back with a report "locked".
Accused be served by way of affixation.
Complainant to take all necessary steps for 20.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.5838/11
03.02.2011
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
ORDER:
I have passed an order in CC NO. 1552/10 ( T.B.S.L. Vs. Jitesh Sharma) on 12.10.2010 wherein it has been decided that the complainant cannot claim jurisdiction where the cheque is drawn on a bank situated outside Delhi and the accused resides outside Delhi.
It has however been decided in the said order that if the cheque is payable at par in all branches of the bank, the complainant can claim jurisdiction.
The said order has been passed after hearing several complainants on various dates.
Complainant in the present complaint can not claim jurisdiction. The matter ought to be returned as decided in the above noted case.
However, Ld. Counsel appearing in the matters of TBSL has placed before this court a copy of SLP filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP pertains to the matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. GNCT Delhi (WPC No. 11911/2009 decided on 23.09.2009). He has also placed before this court a copy of an order (Crl Rev P 170/2010 dated 19.04.2010) of Hon'ble Justice Vipin Sanghi. Hon'ble Justice has taken into account the factum of above said SLP. He is of the view that the outcome of the SLP should be awaited.
I have gone through the SLP. The result may also affect the question of territorial jurisdiction.
I consider that outcome may be awaited.
List the matter on 31.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 C.C.No.5839/11 03.02.2011 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
ORDER:
I have passed an order in CC NO. 1552/10 ( T.B.S.L. Vs. Jitesh Sharma) on 12.10.2010 wherein it has been decided that the complainant cannot claim jurisdiction where the cheque is drawn on a bank situated outside Delhi and the accused resides outside Delhi.
It has however been decided in the said order that if the cheque is payable at par in all branches of the bank, the complainant can claim jurisdiction.
The said order has been passed after hearing several complainants on various dates.
Complainant in the present complaint can not claim jurisdiction. The matter ought to be returned as decided in the above noted case.
However, Ld. Counsel appearing in the matters of TBSL has placed before this court a copy of SLP filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP pertains to the matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. GNCT Delhi (WPC No. 11911/2009 decided on 23.09.2009). He has also placed before this court a copy of an order (Crl Rev P 170/2010 dated 19.04.2010) of Hon'ble Justice Vipin Sanghi. Hon'ble Justice has taken into account the factum of above said SLP. He is of the view that the outcome of the SLP should be awaited.
I have gone through the SLP. The result may also affect the question of territorial jurisdiction.
I consider that outcome may be awaited.
List the matter on 31.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.4542/10
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Warrant not issued.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that PF was filed.
Ahlmad to check.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with for 06.04.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.4423/10
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with counsel.
Matter is settled.
Accused will pay the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in three equal installments.
List of final disposal on 30.04.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 C.C.No.5420/11 03.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
ORDER:
I have passed an order in CC NO. 1552/10 ( T.B.S.L. Vs. Jitesh Sharma) on 12.10.2010 wherein it has been decided that the complainant cannot claim jurisdiction where the cheque is drawn on a bank situated outside Delhi and the accused resides outside Delhi.
It has however been decided in the said order that if the cheque is payable at par in all branches of the bank, the complainant can claim jurisdiction.
The said order has been passed after hearing several complainants on various dates.
Complainant in the present complaint can not claim jurisdiction. The matter ought to be returned as decided in the above noted case.
However, Ld. Counsel appearing in the matters of TBSL has placed before this court a copy of SLP filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP pertains to the matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. GNCT Delhi (WPC No. 11911/2009 decided on 23.09.2009). He has also placed before this court a copy of an order (Crl Rev P 170/2010 dated 19.04.2010) of Hon'ble Justice Vipin Sanghi. Hon'ble Justice has taken into account the factum of above said SLP. He is of the view that the outcome of the SLP should be awaited.
I have gone through the SLP. The result may also affect the question of territorial jurisdiction.
I consider that outcome may be awaited.
List the matter on 31.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 C.C.No.4545/10 03.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Copies of documents supplied.
There are chances of settlement.
Accused is exempted for today.
List on 28.02.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.2789/10
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused absent.
Complainant submits that matter is still pending in the Mediation Cell.
Be listed on 14.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 C.C.No.3473/10 03.02.2011 Present: SPA of the complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
The matter is settled in the court today.
Joint statement recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Accused is acquitted of the charges.
Bail bond and surety bond, if any, be discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.1897/10
03.02.2011
Present: Both the parties.
Parties have been heard on the point of sentence.
Accused submits that he is having three children.
Complainant submits that he is having a daughter of marriageable age and he has to marry his daughter in May-2011.
Accused submits that he does not have any property.
Complainant submits that accused is having properties in Ghaziabad.
I have considered the submissions and gone through the record.
In these circumstances, accused is directed to suffer a simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (under Ist Proviso to Section-143 NI Act).
Out of the fine Rs.3,50,000/- to be paid to the complainant U/s 357(1) Cr.P.C.
Rest of the amount to be deposited with the State.
One month time is given to the accused.
At this stage, convict moved an application U/s 389 Cr.P.C.
Accused is admitted on bail for one month.
Bail bond and surety bond already on record to continue till 02.03.2011.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 C.C.No.2771/10 03.02.2011 Present: Substituted AR of the Proprietorship concern with counsel.
Accused No.2 and 3 in person.
AR is substituted by another AR by the name of Mr. M.K. Venugopal.
His statement is recorded separately in this behalf.
Today, he has filed his Authority Letter which is Mark-A. The matter is settled in the court today.
Joint statement recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Accused persons are acquitted of the charges.
Bail bond and surety bond, if any, be discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File is received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.5792/1103.02.2011 Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
ORDER:
I have passed an order in CC NO. 1552/10 ( T.B.S.L. Vs. Jitesh Sharma) on 12.10.2010 wherein it has been decided that the complainant cannot claim jurisdiction where the cheque is drawn on a bank situated outside Delhi and the accused resides outside Delhi.
It has however been decided in the said order that if the cheque is payable at par in all branches of the bank, the complainant can claim jurisdiction.
The said order has been passed after hearing several complainants on various dates.
Complainant in the present complaint can not claim jurisdiction. The matter ought to be returned as decided in the above noted case.
However, Ld. Counsel appearing in the matters of TBSL has placed before this court a copy of SLP filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP pertains to the matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. GNCT Delhi (WPC No. 11911/2009 decided on 23.09.2009). He has also placed before this court a copy of an order (Crl Rev P 170/2010 dated 19.04.2010) of Hon'ble Justice Vipin Sanghi. Hon'ble Justice has taken into account the factum of above said SLP. He is of the view that the outcome of the SLP should be awaited.
I have gone through the SLP. The result may also affect the question of territorial jurisdiction.
I consider that outcome may be awaited.
List the matter on 31.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.5790/11
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Acknowledgment Card in respect of the notice is on record. However, the same does not bear Stamp of the Postal Authorities in respect of the date of return.
One opportunity to file additional affidavit in respect of Proof of Delivery or Internet Generated Tracking Slip or Report from the Postal Authorities or Internet Generated Tracking Slip of the Courier by which Legal Demand Notice was sent by the complainant.
The complainant may take all necessary steps so that requirement as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case title HDFC Vs. Amit Kumar Singh decided on 22.05.2009 be satisfied.
List on 17.02.2011 at 2.00 p.m. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File taken up on an application moved by the accused person.
C.C.No.1785/10
03.02.2011
Present: Accused with counsel.
Offence is a bailable one.
This is the first appearance of the accused person.
He is admitted on bail.
Bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- furnished and accepted.
Matter be listed on the date fixed i.e. on 03.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File is taken up on an application moved by the accused person.
C.C.No.867/10
03.02.2011
Present: Accused with counsel.
Since accused is present before this court today, NBW becomes infructuous and stands cancelled.
The offence is a bailable one.
Accused is admitted on bail.
Bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- furnished and accepted.
Confusion in respect of dates of hearing is hereby rectified.
It is now clarified that the matter to be listed on 04.05.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File is taken up on an application for Preponement.
C.C.No.402/1003.02.2011 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Defence evidence was closed on 16.12.2010.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that there is no possibility of any compromise for which time was taken by the accused on 16.12.2010.
Next date of hearing is 27.06.2011.
However, considering the fact that defence evidence has already been closed and matter is pending since 2004.
The date is preponed to 22.02.2011.
A notice be issued to the accused to be served by the complainant. Dasti.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File is received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.5793/11
03.02.2011
Present: AR of the complainant.
ORDER:
I have passed an order in CC NO. 1552/10 ( T.B.S.L. Vs. Jitesh Sharma) on 12.10.2010 wherein it has been decided that the complainant cannot claim jurisdiction where the cheque is drawn on a bank situated outside Delhi and the accused resides outside Delhi.
It has however been decided in the said order that if the cheque is payable at par in all branches of the bank, the complainant can claim jurisdiction.
The said order has been passed after hearing several complainants on various dates.
Complainant in the present complaint can not claim jurisdiction. The matter ought to be returned as decided in the above noted case.
However, Ld. Counsel appearing in the matters of TBSL has placed before this court a copy of SLP filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP pertains to the matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. GNCT Delhi (WPC No. 11911/2009 decided on 23.09.2009). He has also placed before this court a copy of an order (Crl Rev P 170/2010 dated 19.04.2010) of Hon'ble Justice Vipin Sanghi. Hon'ble Justice has taken into account the factum of above said SLP. He is of the view that the outcome of the SLP should be awaited.
I have gone through the SLP. The result may also affect the question of territorial jurisdiction.
I consider that outcome may be awaited.
List the matter on 31.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File is received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.5794/11
03.02.2011
Present: AR of the complainant.
ORDER:
I have passed an order in CC NO. 1552/10 ( T.B.S.L. Vs. Jitesh Sharma) on 12.10.2010 wherein it has been decided that the complainant cannot claim jurisdiction where the cheque is drawn on a bank situated outside Delhi and the accused resides outside Delhi.
It has however been decided in the said order that if the cheque is payable at par in all branches of the bank, the complainant can claim jurisdiction.
The said order has been passed after hearing several complainants on various dates.
Complainant in the present complaint can not claim jurisdiction. The matter ought to be returned as decided in the above noted case.
However, Ld. Counsel appearing in the matters of TBSL has placed before this court a copy of SLP filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP pertains to the matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. GNCT Delhi (WPC No. 11911/2009 decided on 23.09.2009). He has also placed before this court a copy of an order (Crl Rev P 170/2010 dated 19.04.2010) of Hon'ble Justice Vipin Sanghi. Hon'ble Justice has taken into account the factum of above said SLP. He is of the view that the outcome of the SLP should be awaited.
I have gone through the SLP. The result may also affect the question of territorial jurisdiction.
I consider that outcome may be awaited.
List the matter on 31.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File is received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.5789/11
03.02.2011
Present: None.
ORDER:
I have passed an order in CC NO. 1552/10 ( T.B.S.L. Vs. Jitesh Sharma) on 12.10.2010 wherein it has been decided that the complainant cannot claim jurisdiction where the cheque is drawn on a bank situated outside Delhi and the accused resides outside Delhi.
It has however been decided in the said order that if the cheque is payable at par in all branches of the bank, the complainant can claim jurisdiction.
The said order has been passed after hearing several complainants on various dates.
Complainant in the present complaint can not claim jurisdiction. The matter ought to be returned as decided in the above noted case.
However, Ld. Counsel appearing in the matters of TBSL has placed before this court a copy of SLP filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP pertains to the matter decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee vs. GNCT Delhi (WPC No. 11911/2009 decided on 23.09.2009). He has also placed before this court a copy of an order (Crl Rev P 170/2010 dated 19.04.2010) of Hon'ble Justice Vipin Sanghi. Hon'ble Justice has taken into account the factum of above said SLP. He is of the view that the outcome of the SLP should be awaited.
I have gone through the SLP. The result may also affect the question of territorial jurisdiction.
I consider that outcome may be awaited.
List the matter on 31.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File is received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered.
C.C.No.5791/11
03.02.2011
Present: None.
Matter be listed for tomorrow i.e. on 04.02.2011 at 2.00 p.m. (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11 File taken up on an application moved by the convict.
C.C.No.472/10
03.02.2011
Present: Counsel for the convict.
It is brought to the notice that convict has been directed by the Hon'ble Superior Court to deposit the compensation amount. Application allowed.
Fixed Deposit of Rs.60,000/- is filed by the convict. It be taken on record. However, this will be subject to final outcome.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11
C.C.No.1901/10
03.02.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
One opportunity is being given to the accused to lead defence evidence.
Issue notice to the accused for 08.03.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-1(Central)/Delhi/03.02.11