Delhi District Court
Sanjive Kumar Gulati vs . Mukesh Bhatia on 11 April, 2012
Sanjive Kumar Gulati Vs. Mukesh Bhatia C.C.No.5983/11 & 5984/11 11.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
These are two connected matters.
Accused is seeking a passover for want of counsel.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 At 04.10 p.m. Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused filed an application U/s 315 Cr.P.C. Allowed.
Examination-in-chief recorded in CC No.5984/10 and he is also examined in part in that case.
Ld. Counsel for the accused, however, wants to examine the accused in other case on the next date.
Both the files be adjourned to 22.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Shree Nath Jewellers Vs. Ms. Natasha Anand C.C.No.204/10 11.04.2012 Present: None.
It appears that fresh NBW was directed to be issued only after filing of fresh address. Complainant, however, not filed any fresh address of the accused.
The office issued a summons to the accused which is unserved.
The concerned Ahlmad is warned to be careful in future.
Complainant is also not appearing.
Be awaited for the complainant.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 At 01.35 p.m. Present: Proxy counsel for the complainant.
She is seeking time as main counsel's wife is hospitalized.
List for appearance of complainant and his counsel so that they can assist on 08.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Anil Kumar Vs. M/s M.K. Exporters & Traders & Ors.
C.C.No.3669/10
11.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused No.2 in person.
Accused is seeking a passover for want of counsel.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 At 10.55 a.m. Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused No.2 with counsel.
It appears that accused No.2 was given an opportunity to show the sufficient cause against the deemed forfeiture of his bond amount. However, till date accused has not shown any sufficient cause in this respect. A detailed order passed on the last date. Since accused failed to show any sufficient cause, he has to pay the forfeited amount of earlier bond. Five days time is given to the accused.
There is no report in respect of compliance of previous order against other accused person whereas ld. counsel for the complainant submits that he has already filed the process fee.
Let the other accused be summoned for 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. Tarsem Singh C.C.No.3139/10 11.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Summons issued to the Process Server received back with a request of next date on the ground that he has gone out of station.
Let the Process Server be called.
List on 01.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Ashok Kumar Taparia Vs. Girdhari Lal C.C.No.1173/10 11.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
It appears that on 03.04.2012 an application was filed by the accused for his personal exemption for the date of hearing i.e. 11.04.2012. The said application was directed to be listed on date fixed.
It appears that matter was to be listed on 01.02.2012 but in view of Mission Mode Programme launched by the Ministry of Law, file was taken up on 24.12.2011 and notice was issued to both the parties for 16.01.2012. And on 16.01.2012, counsel for the complainant was present on notice. Accused was, however, unserved. The matter then adjourned for 11.04.2012 by the Ld. Link MM.
It further appears that the office did not list the file on 01.02.2012 as on 16.01.2012 matter was adjourned for 11.04.2012.
As such the date i.e. 01.02.2012 has to be treated as cancelled.
I have perused the application.
The accused has sought exemption on the ground that he is the key witness in a case at Patiala House Court which is listed for today i.e. 11.04.2012. The exemption is allowed.
One more opportunity for the accused to establish his defence. Matter is very old.
List on 07.05.2012.
At request of ld. counsel for the complainant, date is changed to 08.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 DEEPEE Scientific & Chemical Co. Vs. Aryave Biotech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.2768/10
11.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Counsel for the accused.
Ld. Counsel for the accused has paid Rs.70,000/- to the AR of the complainant in cash. He assures that remaining amount of Rs.64,000/- to be paid within 15 days. The same is acceptable to the AR of the complainant.
One more opportunity for the accused to complete the payment.
At request of the parties, list on 03.05.2012 for payment.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Dilip Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Dr. Rajender Singh C.C.No.5409/11 11.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused with ld. proxy counsel.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused is again seeking time for arguments.
One opportunity with an adjournment cost of Rs.5,000/- as the adjournment is solely attributable to the accused.
List on 26.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Dr. Joginder Kumar Vs. Ravi Kumar C.C.No.2229/10 11.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
It appears that on the last date the report was received from the Nazarat Branch which is showing the status that they had returned the unserved summons on 06.07.2011.
The said summons is not on record.
Ahlmad shall make a report.
There is also no report in respect of issuance of notice to the complainant.
It shall be issued for 07.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Expressions Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan Sethi.
C.C.No.1238/1011.04.2012 Present: Ld. Proxy counsel for the complainant.
He submits that he is not aware about the facts of the present case.
A bare perusal of the file goes to show that complainant is not prosecuting the present case with all due seriousness.
It appears that when the NBW was received with a report no such address, fresh NBW was issued and complainant was given an option to assist the police official. It, however, appears that complainant did not accompany the police official and the fresh NBW also received with a report no such address. As such matter was adjourned for appearance of complainant. However, today neither the AR of the complainant nor his main counsel is present.
Ld. Proxy counsel who is present does not have any knowledge about the case.
The none appearance of the AR of the complainant and ld. counsel does clearly fall U/s 256 Cr.P.C. and presence of ld. proxy counsel does not satisfy the requirement thereof.
In the entire facts and circumstances, the complaint is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Jasbir Singh Vs. Rajinder Kumar C.C.No.641/10 11.04.2012 Present: None.
NBW received back with a report left the address one year ago.
It appears that same address has been provided by the accused in his Bail Bond which was accepted on 22.09.2010.
Clearly accused is deliberately avoiding his appearance.
A Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused with a direction to the police official to file his affidavit in respect of the execution.
A Notice to his Surety be issued.
List on 16.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Kailash Chand Vs. Raj Kumar C.C.No.1489/10 11.04.2012 Present: None.
Notice issued to the ld. counsel for the complainant received back unserved.
A Notice be issued to the complainant for 26.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s M.D. Overseas Ltd. Vs. M/s Uma Shankar Kamal Narain C.C.No.5698/11 11.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
There is no report in respect of Attachment Warrant against the Convict firm.
Ahlmad to report.
Order be also complied with for 24.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Jiwan Book International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ratnesh C.C.No.6465/12 11.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
He is seeking time for want of complainant.
Matter is listed for pre-summoning evidence for 10.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Mohammad Rais Vs. Baidya Nath C.C.No.4063/10 11.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
Process Server Puran Singh and Incharge-V-B are absent.
A Bailable Warrant in the sum of Rs.5,000/- be issued against both the accused persons for 31.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Non Woven Point Vs. M/s Lalji Enterprises C.C.No.3870/10 11.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
This a Parcha Yaddast.
File be awaited from the Ld. Revisional Court.
List on 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Prakash Chand Goel Vs. Rajesh Sharma & Anr.
C.C.No.5253/10
11.04.2012
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused in person.
Complainant submits that both the cheques received from the accused have dishonoured. A clear intention is appearing on the part of the accused to delay the matter.
It appears that in the year 2007, accused pleaded not guilty.
One opportunity is given to the accused to establish his defence by taking all necessary steps failing which no further opportunity will be given.
The matter pertains to the year 2001.
List on 02.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Sanjeev Sharma Vs. Ramesh Sharma C.C.No.2583/10 11.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
NBW unexecuted with a report left the address three years ago. Whereas it appears that accused had provided the same address in his bail bond which accepted on 02.05.2011. Clearly accused is deliberately avoiding his appearance.
A Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
Notice to Surety duly served. However, Surety is not present. Clearly Surety does not want to say anything. As such Surety is liable to pay the bond amount as he has failed to justify his sufficient cause despite service of notice.
A Warrant of Attachment in the sum of Rs.20,000/- be issued against the Surety.
List on 27.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. Nafis Ahmed C.C.No.1736/10 11.04.2012 Present: None for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
It appears that matter is listed for reply and arguments on an application moved by the accused U/s 311 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 145(2) NI Act. Complainant is, however, not appearing.
I have heard the ld. counsel for the accused.
Put up the matter for orders on 04.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Ms. Satya Wati Vs. M/s Mustaque Leather Works C.C.No.1170/10 11.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused absent.
A request of next date has been received from the Process Server.
It appears that Process Server is sending request for next date regularly.
A BW in the sum of Rs.5,000/- be issued against the Process Server.
List on 24.04.2012.
At request of ld. counsel for the complainant, date is changed to 01.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Tara Chand Munna Lal (India) Vs. Natwar Aggarwal C.C.No.4492/10 11.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Summons unserved.
It, however, appears that office issued the summons without receiving any fresh address of the complainant whereas specific direction was made in this respect.
One opportunity to the complainant to comply with the last order for 14.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Tilak Raj Vinayak Vs. Dalip Kumar C.C.No.6032/11 11.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
There is no report in respect of compliance of previous order. Let the same be accordingly complied with. It, however, appears that summons for the last date has been received back with a refusal by the wife of the accused.
Summons be served through the concerned SHO.
List on 13.08.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Vinod Arora Vs. M/s Auto Accessories C.C.No.3919/10 11.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Vide an application dated 27.02.2012, accused is seeking correction of the order dated 07.12.2011 on the ground that this court without perusing the previous order passed the order dated 07.12.2011 thereby directing the accused to disclose his defence whereas matter was earlier listed for post summoning evidence and cross-examination in the year 2009.
In my considered view, the averments made in the application are completely derogatory and do not conform with the standard of legal practice and decorum to be maintained in the judicial proceedings by all the ld. counsels.
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gurpreet Singh Vs. M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. & decided on 02 August, 2010 has already deprecated the practice of listing the file of post summoning evidence in a trial for offences U/s 138 NI Act and has clearly directed to follow the dictum laid down in Rajesh Aggarwal Vs. State decided on 28.07.2010 and has further directed the accused must disclose his defence. Even Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ORG INFORMATICS LTD. Vs STATE & ANR. Crl. M. C. No.2409/2011 decided on 01.08.2011 has upheld a direction of the Ld. Trial Court whereby accused was asked to disclose his defence in a case already listed for post summoning evidence. In such circumstances, I am of the view that a direction given by this court on the last date to the accused to disclose his defence does not require any recalling. Be that as it may. With a hope that ld. counsel and all the ld. counsels will maintain proper ethical standard of legal practice, I am not inclined to take any further action.
Accused has also disclosed his defence in the same application and prayed for cross- examination of the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of cross-examination on the ground that the same would have amount to the review of the order.
I am not inclined to accept this proposition. Accused was given an opportunity to disclose his defence which he has done and has also asked for a cross-examination by invoking Section-145(2) NI Act. I consider that if the accused satisfy the necessity of cross-examination on the defence raised by him, the cross- examination has to be allowed.
I consider that accused has disclosed his defence which requires cross-examination of the complainant.
The application of the accused is allowed only to the extent of cross-examination of the complainant. In other respect the same be dismissed.
Put up for cross-examination of the complainant on 09.05.2012.
At request of both the ld. counsel, date is changed to 14.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 A.H.R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surender Kumar C.C.No.2835/10 11.04.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel.
Proxy counsel for the accused.
Matter was listed for defence evidence.
An exemption application has been filed on behalf of the accused on the ground that accused is suffering from Viral Fever. Simply a bald averment has been made in the application without any detailed or supporting document. Exemption application is dismissed.
Clearly this is an attempt on the part of the accused to get an adjournment.
Summary trial procedure should not be allowed to be delayed.
Plea and Examination of accused was recorded on 08.02.2012 and he was given an opportunity to establish his defence. It may be noted that accused had not filed any application U/s 145(2) NI Act on that day and, therefore, matter was listed for defence evidence.
Till date, accused has not taken any step in defence. Accused could have filed list of witnesseses in defence or an application for summoning any witness if so required or a written request for examining in defence if so advised. Accused, however, chose not to do any such things and remained silent till the actual date of hearing. Even on the actual date of hearing i.e. today, he chose not to participate in the proceedings either in person or through his ld. main counsel. Instead he sent a completely frivolous application through the ld. proxy counsel.
No further opportunity can be given to the accused. Opportunity to lead defence evidence is closed. Put up for final arguments on 26.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Bhaskar Kedia Vs. Chiman Lal C.C.No.850/10, 2767/10, 848/10, 847/10 & 851/10 11.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
These are five connected matters.
Accused has filed one reply to the application of the complainant.
I have heard both the ld. counsels.
Put up for orders on 10.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. (EHAL) Vs. M/s Sheetla Enterprises C.C.No.1829/10 11.04.2012 Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has filed new Vakalatnama.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that accused will deposit the earlier cost today itself with DLSA.
Matter is listed for cross-examination of AR of the complainant, however, he is not present on the ground that Income Tax inspection is going on in his office.
Ld. Counsel for the accused is, however, submits that complainant is deliberately harassing the accused as accused has come from Solan.
One opportunity for the complainant subject to a cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with DLSA within five days.
List on 16.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Vikas Nagpal Vs. M/s Radiance Multitech & Ors.
C.C.No.2689/10
11.04.2012
Present: None for the parties.
Process Server HC Shiv Kumar submits that the process was executed on the same day i.e. 15.02.2012 which date appears below his name on the report.
It appears that date of appearance was 15.03.2012. Clearly 30 days time was not provided to the accused as required U/s 82 Cr.P.C.
HC Shiv Kumar is warned to be careful in future.
Let process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be issued against the accused.
List on 22.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Ezee Flights Travel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Ele Fly World Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.6519/1211.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Gaurav Chibber, AR of the complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/1 which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I also rely upon the document Certificate of Incorporation which is Exh.CW1/A (OSR). I hereby close my pre-summoning evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. M/s Bonageri Lifescience Ltd. & Anr.
C.C.No.6569/1211.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Anand Sharma, AR of the complainant company. On S.A. I, the above named AR of the complainant company do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/EV which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my pre-summoning evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Anu Products Ltd. Vs. M/s Bonageri Lifescience Ltd. & Anr.
Fresh case received by way of assignment. Let it be checked and registered.
C.C.No.6569/1211.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company with ld. 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 20.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Ezee Flights Travel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Ele Fly World Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.6519/1211.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant company with ld. 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 01.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Anil Chemists Vs. Bimal Relhan C.C.No.622/10, 623/10 & 624/10 11.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
These are three connected matters.
I have heard the ld. counsels on the application moved U/s 145(2) NI Act.
In his Plea, accused had taken two defences, namely, advance cheques and non service of legal demand notice.
In the application, accused has not detailed any ground on which he wants to cross- examine the complainant and only raised the three issues:
Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that accused has every right to confront the Ledger Account to the complainant and the complainant is duty bound to explain the entries in the Ledger Account.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer on the ground that no such defence was taken by the accused in his plea and even in the application. He further submitted that the accused is only trying to delay the matter.
I consider that so far as service of legal demand notice is concerned, in view of presumption of law available U/s 27 General Clauses Act, it is for the accused to dispute the service of notice by calling such witnesses as may be advisable. There is nothing in this defence which require any cross-examination of the complainant as the complainant cannot be said to have any control over the postal articles once it comes in the possession of the post office.
So far as the defence of advance cheques is concerned, no details were made by the accused in his Plea. Even he has not made any details in the application. However, during the arguments, ld. counsel for the accused accepted that signature on Tax Invoice is of the representative of the accused. Though he has, however, tried to contend that in one case that the goods were without checking and for this he has relied upon Exh.CW1/1 in CC No. 624/10.
I consider that the acceptance goes to show Delivery of Goods. In view of Section-42 Sales of Goods Act, I am of the view that it is for the accused to establish if he ever intimated the complainant about any defect or rejected the consignment.
The application is dismissed.
One opportunity for the accused to establish his particular defences.
List on 18.05.2012.
At request of both the parties, date is changed to 23.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Pritpal Singh Bhatia Vs. Ms. Harmeet Kaur C.C.No.4064/10 11.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
DW1 D.N. Saxena, Branch Manager, Nainital Bank examined and discharged.
Narender Singh from Ram Garhia Cooperative Bank has not brought the complete record and is seeking time. One opportunity.
Clerk of the Duty Officer from PS : Hari Nagar is absent despite service.
A BW in the sum of Rs.5,000/- be issued against this witness.
List on 10.05.2012.
At request of parties, date is changed to 09.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Ishwar Singh Tanwar Vs. Rajpal & Anr.
C.C.No.4836/10
11.04.2012
Present: Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that he was busy in some other case at Karkardooma Court on 02.03.2012 and, therefore, he could not appear after which cost of Rs. 500/- was imposed. Ld. counsel for the accused has prayed for waiver of the cost. Considered. Cost is waived. However, accused is directed to be careful in future so that he can participate in the proceedings in the fruitful manner.
I have heard both the ld. counsels on the application U/s 145(2) NI Act.
On the defence taken in the application and the copies of the documents filed alongwith the application and in view of submissions of both the ld. counsels, I am of the view that accused has made out a case for cross-examination of the complainant. Accused is allowed to cross-examine the complainant to the extent disclosed in his application.
List for appearance of complainant and his cross-examination for 02.06.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Niranjan Lal Gupta Vs. Ravinder Singh C.C.No.6510/10 11.04.2012 Present: Both the parties with their counsels.
Accused has filed a reply to the application moved by the complainant U/s 437(5) Cr.P.C.
I have heard both the ld. counsels.
Put up the matter for orders on 21.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Bhupinder Singh Vs. M/s Koyal Online Pvt. Ltd.
Fresh case received by way of assignment. Let it be checked and registered.
C.C.No.6568/12
11.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. Counsel seeks time to advance argument.
List on 05.05.2012.
At request of ld. counsel, date is changed to 19.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 B.M. Sawhney & Sons (HUF) Vs. M/s Sumeet Research & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.4320/1011.04.2012 Statement of Mr. H.S. Kohli, Ld. Counsel for the complainant (HUF). Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant (HUF) has instructions to withdraw the present complaint case as the matter has been amicably settled with the accused company in full and final settlement. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused company.
Therefore, the matter may be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 B.M. Sawhney & Sons (HUF) Vs. M/s Sumeet Research & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.4319/1011.04.2012 Statement of Mr. H.S. Kohli, Ld. Counsel for the complainant (HUF). Without oath.
I, the above named counsel for the complainant (HUF) has instructions to withdraw the present complaint case as the matter has been amicably settled with the accused company in full and final settlement. Complainant has no further grievance against the accused company.
Therefore, the matter may be treated as compounded U/s 147 NI Act. RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Ms. Renu Kapoor Vs. Ms. Madhu Bala Fresh case received by way of assignment. Let it be checked and registered.
C.C.No.6567/12
11.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
He seeks time for arguments.
List on 25.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Yogesh Dotania Vs. Shankar Lal Narolia C.C.No.6495/12 11.04.2012 Present: Complainant with ld. proxy counsel.
It appears that an issue in respect of authority of complainant regarding consideration of the cheque was also in question. On 24.03.2012, only the issue of territorial jurisdiction was decided with other several matters. But the other issue indicated above remains as it is.
Ld. Proxy counsel submits that a similar matter against the accused filed by the friend of the complainant is also pending in this court wherein similar issue is in question.
List the matter on 02.05.2012 for arguments on this issue.
Complainant to also establish the proof of delivery in respect of legal demand notice, if any.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. Manish File is taken up as per the Mediation Order.
C.C.No.5949/11
11.04.2012
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Accused in person.
Matter settled.
Accused has made the payment of Rs.35,000/- by way of two cheques dated 20.04.2012 and 12.05.2012 respectively.
Be listed on 17.05.2012.
Earlier date 16.04.2012 is cancelled.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Paras Holidays (P) Ltd. Vs. Ms. Roopali Aggarwal File taken up on an application for deposit of Diet Money.
C.C.No.5765/11
11.04.2012
Present: Accused in person.
She, however, prayed that Diet Money may be allowed to be paid at the spot. As such application dismissed.
Diet Money to be paid at the spot.
List on date fixed i.e. on 03.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Deepak Jaitly C.C.No.6469/12 11.04.2012 Statement of Mr. Gopal Singh, Special Power of Attorney of the complainant. On S.A. I, the above named SPA of the complainant do hereby tender my evidence by way of affidavit Exh.CW1/A which bears my signatures at Point A and Point B. I hereby close my Pre-summoning evidence.
RO & AC (RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Vaishali Thread Corporation Vs. M/s Simran Impex File taken up on an application for cancellation of NBW.
C.C.No.200/1011.04.2012 Present: Accused with ld. proxy counsel Sh. Puneet Goel.
Ld. proxy counsel submits that due to wrong noting of the date, the accused could not appear on 03.04.2012.
He has filed copy of his case diary. He further submits that ld. main counsel Sh. Ajay Goel is his elder brother and both the counsels are practicing jointly.
One opportunity to the accused to participate in the proceedings regularly.
NBW is cancelled with a strict warning.
List on date fixed i.e. 10.05.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 M/s Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. Vs. Varun Kumar Chaturvedi & Ors.
C.C.No.6049/11
11.04.2012
Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused absent.
It is already 04.00 p.m. However, no one is appearing on behalf of the accused.
AR submits that accused Arun Kumar is in JC in some other case bearing FIR No. 242/2011, PS : Darya Ganj.
Let Production Warrant be issued.
NBW be also issued against accused Varun Kumar.
List on 14.05.2012 for cross-examination.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Rajeev Goel Vs. Ashok Sharma File taken up on an application for summoning of witness in defence.
C.C.No.1940/10 & 1963/10 11.04.2012 Present: Ld. Counsel for the accused.
It appears that accused was directed to take all necessary steps before the next date.
Accused has filed list of witnesses mentioning six witnesses. However, by the application he has sought to summons only two witnesses i.e. Clerk from PNB and SBI.
Let both the witnesses be summoned for date fixed i.e. 28.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Deepak Jaitly C.C.No.6469/12 11.04.2012 Present: SPA of the complainant with ld. 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 Deepak Jaitly 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 20.07.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 B.M. Sawhney & Sons (HUF) Vs. M/s Sumeet Research & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
C.C.No.4319/10 & 4320/1011.04.2012 Present: Mr. H.S. Kohli, Ld. Counsel for the complainant (HUF).
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of ld. counsel for the complainant recorded.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
Accused is acquitted of the charges.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond, if any, be discharged.
Earlier date stands cancelled.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012 Industrial Trading House Vs. Ramesh Kumar C.C.No.236/10 11.04.2012 Present: AR of the complainant.
Accused in person.
Matter is listed for pronouncement of judgment.
Certain clarifications are, however, required but the ld. counsels from both the sides are not available.
List for clarification/order on 24.04.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH) MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/11.04.2012